Social determinants of health and US cancer screening interventions: A systematic review.

There remains a need to synthesize linkages between social determinants of health (SDOH) and cancer screening to reduce persistent inequities contributing to the US cancer burden. The authors conducted a systematic review of US-based breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening intervention studies to summarize how SDOH have been considered in interventions and relationships between SDOH and screening. Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed research articles published in English between 2010 and 2021. The Covidence software platform was used to screen articles and extract data using a standardized template. Data items included study and intervention characteristics, SDOH intervention components and measures, and screening outcomes. The findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and narratives. The review included 144 studies among diverse population groups. SDOH interventions increased screening rates overall by a median of 8.4 percentage points (interquartile interval, 1.8-18.8 percentage points). The objective of most interventions was to increase community demand (90.3%) and access (84.0%) to screening. SDOH interventions related to health care access and quality were most prevalent (227 unique intervention components). Other SDOH, including educational, social/community, environmental, and economic factors, were less common (90, 52, 21, and zero intervention components, respectively). Studies that included analyses of health policy, access to care, and lower costs yielded the largest proportions of favorable associations with screening outcomes. SDOH were predominantly measured at the individual level. This review describes how SDOH have been considered in the design and evaluation of cancer screening interventions and effect sizes for SDOH interventions. Findings may guide future intervention and implementation research aiming to reduce US screening inequities.

How can hospitals change practice to better implement smoking cessation interventions? A systematic review.

Smoking cessation reduces the risk of death, improves recovery, and reduces the risk of hospital readmission. Evidence and policy support hospital admission as an ideal time to deliver smoking-cessation interventions. However, this is not well implemented in practice. In this systematic review, the authors summarize the literature on smoking-cessation implementation strategies and evaluate their success to guide the implementation of best-practice smoking interventions into hospital settings. The CINAHL Complete, Embase, MEDLINE Complete, and PsycInfo databases were searched using terms associated with the following topics: smoking cessation, hospitals, and implementation. In total, 14,287 original records were identified and screened, resulting in 63 eligible articles from 56 studies. Data were extracted on the study characteristics, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes. Implementation outcomes were guided by Proctor and colleagues' framework and included acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. The findings demonstrate that studies predominantly focused on the training of staff to achieve implementation. Brief implementation approaches using a small number of implementation strategies were less successful and poorly sustained compared with well resourced and multicomponent approaches. Although brief implementation approaches may be viewed as advantageous because they are less resource-intensive, their capacity to change practice in a sustained way lacks evidence. Attempts to change clinician behavior or introduce new models of care are challenging in a short time frame, and implementation efforts should be designed for long-term success. There is a need to embrace strategic, well planned implementation approaches to embed smoking-cessation interventions into hospitals and to reap and sustain the benefits for people who smoke.

Using implementation science to evaluate a population-wide genomic screening program: Findings from the first 20,000 In Our DNA SC participants.

We use the implementation science framework RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) to describe outcomes of In Our DNA SC, a population-wide genomic screening (PWGS) program. In Our DNA SC involves participation through clinical appointments, community events, or at home collection. Participants provide a saliva sample that is sequenced by Helix, and those with a pathogenic variant or likely pathogenic variant for CDC Tier 1 conditions are offered free genetic counseling. We assessed key outcomes among the first cohort of individuals recruited. Over 14 months, 20,478 participants enrolled, and 14,053 samples were collected. The majority selected at-home sample collection followed by clinical sample collection and collection at community events. Participants were predominately female, White (self-identified), non-Hispanic, and between the ages of 40-49. Participants enrolled through community events were the most racially diverse and the youngest. Half of those enrolled completed the program. We identified 137 individuals with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants for CDC Tier 1 conditions. The majority (77.4%) agreed to genetic counseling, and of those that agreed, 80.2% completed counseling. Twelve clinics participated, and we conducted 108 collection events. Participants enrolled at home were most likely to return their sample for sequencing. Through this evaluation, we identified facilitators and barriers to implementation of our state-wide PWGS program. Standardized reporting using implementation science frameworks can help generalize strategies and improve the impact of PWGS.

Implementation of Obesity Science Into Clinical Practice: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Obesity is a recognized public health epidemic with a prevalence that continues to increase dramatically in nearly all populations, impeding progress in reducing incidence rates of cardiovascular disease. Over the past decade, obesity science has evolved to improve knowledge of its multifactorial causes, identifying important biological causes and sociological determinants of obesity. Treatments for obesity have also continued to develop, with more evidence-based programs for lifestyle modification, new pharmacotherapies, and robust data to support bariatric surgery. Despite these advancements, there continues to be a substantial gap between the scientific evidence and the implementation of research into clinical practice for effective obesity management. Addressing barriers to obesity science implementation requires adopting feasible methodologies and targeting multiple levels (eg, clinician, community, system, policy) to facilitate the delivery of obesity-targeted therapies and maximize the effectiveness of guideline-driven care to at-need patient populations. This scientific statement (1) describes strategies shown to be effective or promising for enhancing translation and clinical application of obesity-based research; (2) identifies key gaps in the implementation of obesity science into clinical practice; and (3) provides guidance and resources for health care professionals, health care systems, and other stakeholders to promote broader implementation and uptake of obesity science for improved population-level obesity management. In addition, advances in implementation science that hold promise to bridge the know-do gap in obesity prevention and treatment are discussed. Last, this scientific statement highlights implications for health research policy and future research to improve patient care models and optimize the delivery and sustainability of equitable obesity-related care.

Implementation Science to Achieve Equity in Heart Failure Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Guideline-directed medical therapies and guideline-directed nonpharmacological therapies improve quality of life and survival in patients with heart failure (HF), but eligible patients, particularly women and individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, are often not treated with these therapies. Implementation science uses evidence-based theories and frameworks to identify strategies that facilitate uptake of evidence to improve health. In this scientific statement, we provide an overview of implementation trials in HF, assess their use of conceptual frameworks and health equity principles, and provide pragmatic guidance for equity in HF. Overall, behavioral nudges, multidisciplinary care, and digital health strategies increased uptake of therapies in HF effectively but did not include equity goals. Few HF studies focused on achieving equity in HF by engaging stakeholders, quantifying barriers and facilitators to HF therapies, developing strategies for equity informed by theory or frameworks, evaluating implementation measures for equity, and titrating strategies for equity. Among these HF equity studies, feasibility was established in using various educational strategies to promote organizational change and equitable care. A couple include ongoing randomized controlled pragmatic trials for HF equity. There is great need for additional HF implementation trials designed to promote delivery of equitable guideline-directed therapy.

A Systematic Review of Implementation Research on Determinants and Strategies of Effective HIV Interventions for Men Who Have Sex with Men in the United States.

Men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately affected by HIV, accounting for two-thirds of HIV cases in the United States despite representing ∼5% of the adult population. Delivery and use of existing and highly effective HIV prevention and treatment strategies remain suboptimal among MSM. To summarize the state of the science, we systematically review implementation determinants and strategies of HIV-related health interventions using implementation science frameworks. Research on implementation barriers has focused predominantly on characteristics of individual recipients (e.g., ethnicity, age, drug use) and less so on deliverers (e.g., nurses, physicians), with little focus on system-level factors. Similarly, most strategies target recipients to influence their uptake and adherence, rather than improving and supporting implementation systems. HIV implementation research is burgeoning; future research is needed to broaden the examination of barriers at the provider and system levels, as well as expand knowledge on how to match strategies to barriers-particularly to address stigma. Collaboration and coordination among federal, state, and local public health agencies; community-based organizations; health care providers; and scientists are important for successful implementation of HIV-related health innovations.

Implementing Telestroke in the Inpatient Setting: Identifying Factors for Success.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient telestroke programs have emerged as a solution to provide timely stroke care in underserved areas, but their successful implementation and factors influencing their effectiveness remain underexplored. This study aimed to qualitatively evaluate the perspectives of inpatient clinicians located at spoke hospitals participating in a newly established inpatient telestroke program to identify implementation barriers and facilitators. METHODS: This was a formative evaluation relying on semistructured qualitative interviews with 16 inpatient providers (physicians and nurse practitioners) at 5 spoke sites of a hub-and-spoke inpatient telestroke program. The Integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework guided data analysis, focusing on the innovation, recipients, context, and facilitation aspects of implementation. Interviews were transcribed and coded using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen themes were identified in the data and mapped to the Integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework. Themes related to the innovation (the telestroke program) included easy access to stroke specialists, the benefits of limiting patient transfers, concerns about duplicating tests, and challenges of timing inpatient telestroke visits and notes to align with discharge workflow. Themes pertaining to recipients (care team members and patients) were communication gaps between teams, concern about the supervision of inpatient telestroke advanced practice providers and challenges with nurse empowerment. With regard to the context (hospital and system factors), providers highlighted familiarity with telehealth technologies as a facilitator to implementing inpatient telestroke, yet highlighted resource limitations in smaller facilities. Facilitation (program implementation) was recognized as crucial for education, standardization, and buy-in. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding barriers and facilitators to implementation is crucial to determining where programmatic changes may need to be made to ensure the success and sustainment of inpatient telestroke services.

Bridges and Mechanisms: Integrating Systems Science Thinking into Implementation Research.

We present a detailed argument for how to integrate, or bridge, systems science thinking and methods with implementation science. We start by showing how fundamental systems science principles of structure, dynamics, information, and utility are relevant for implementation science. Then we examine the need for implementation science to develop and apply richer theories of complex systems. This can be accomplished by emphasizing a causal mechanisms approach. Identifying causal mechanisms focuses on the "cogs and gears" of public health, clinical, and organizational interventions. A mechanisms approach focuses on how a specific strategy will produce the implementation outcome. We show how connecting systems science to implementation science opens new opportunities for examining and addressing social determinants of health and conducting equitable and ethical implementation research. Finally, we present case studies illustrating successful applications of systems science within implementation science in community health policy, tobacco control, health care access, and breast cancer screening.

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, wesynthesize 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.

Leveraging Implementation Science to Advance Environmental Justice Research and Achieve Health Equity through Neighborhood and Policy Interventions.

Environmental justice research is increasingly focused on community-engaged, participatory investigations that test interventions to improve health. Such research is primed for the use of implementation science-informed approaches to optimize the uptake and use of interventions proven to be effective. This review identifies synergies between implementation science and environmental justice with the goal of advancing both disciplines. Specifically, the article synthesizes the literature on neighborhood-, community-, and policy-level interventions in environmental health that address underlying structural determinants (e.g., structural racism) and social determinants of health. Opportunities to facilitate and scale the equitable implementation of evidence-based environmental health interventions are highlighted, using urban greening as an illustrative example. An environmental justice-focused version of the implementation science subway is provided, which highlights these principles: Remember and Reflect, Restore and Reclaim, and Reinvest. The review concludes with existing gaps and future directions to advance the science of implementation to promote environmental justice.

Using Participatory Implementation Science to Advance Health Equity.

Participatory approaches to implementation science (IS) offer an inclusive, collaborative, and iterative perspective on implementing and sustaining evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to advance health equity. This review provides guidance on the principles and practice of participatory IS, which enables academic researchers, community members, implementers, and other actors to collaboratively integrate practice-, community-, and research-based evidence into public health and health care services. With a foundational focus on supporting academics in coproducing knowledge and action, participatory IS seeks to improve health, reduce inequity, and create transformational change. The three main sections of this review provide (a) a rationale for participatory approaches to research in implementation science, (b) a framework for integrating participatory approaches in research utilizing IS theory and methods, and (c) critical considerations for optimizing the practice and impact of participatory IS. Ultimately, participatory approaches can move IS activities beyond efforts to make EBIs work within harmful systems toward transformative solutions that reshape these systems to center equity.

Be Well™ Acres Homes: a community-driven, evidence-based approach to reduce health inequities through sustained cross-sector partnership.

PURPOSE: Be Well Communities™ is MD Anderson's signature place-based approach for cancer prevention and control, working with communities to promote wellness and address modifiable risk factors for cancer. The purpose of this paper is to describe implementation of the planning phase of the Be Well Communities model in Acres Homes which began in 2019. METHODS: A community advisory group (Steering Committee) including residents, non-profit organizations, health care partners, city and county agencies, plus other stakeholders, was convened and aligned through a structured process to develop shared goals, foster multisector collaboration, as measured by a stakeholder survey administered twice, and enhance community capacity to improve health outcomes through development of a Community Action Plan. RESULTS: Clear, achievable goals were developed, multisector collaboration was enhanced, and more than 400 h of capacity building support led to a Community Action Plan initially focused on healthy eating and active living, including 15 evidence-based interventions led by 18 organizations. The majority (93%) of the Steering Committee reports that this plan reflects community priorities and will reach the residents most in need. CONCLUSION: By listening and developing trust, the Be Well Communities team successfully worked with Acres Homes residents and organizations to enhance community capacity to address health inequities in one of Houston's most diverse and historic communities.

Measuring perceived utility of genomic sequencing: Development and validation of the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale for pediatric diagnostic testing.

PURPOSE: Measuring the effects of genomic sequencing (GS) on patients and families is critical for translational research. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument to assess parents' perceived utility of pediatric diagnostic GS. METHODS: Informed by a 5-domain conceptual model, the study comprised 5 steps: (1) item writing, (2) cognitive testing, (3) pilot testing and item reduction, (4) psychometric testing, and (5) evaluation of construct validity. Parents of pediatric patients who had received results of clinically indicated GS participated in structured cognitive interviews and 2 rounds of surveys. After eliminating items based on theory and quantitative performance, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis and calculated Pearson correlations with related instruments. RESULTS: We derived the 21-item Pediatric Diagnostic version of the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale, which has a 2-factor structure that includes an Informational Utility subscale (16 items, α = 0.91) and an Emotional Utility subscale (5 items, α = 0.71). Scores can be summed to calculate a Total scale score (α = 0.87). The Informational Utility subscale was strongly associated with empowerment and personal utility of GS, and the Emotional Utility subscale was moderately associated with psychosocial impact and depression and anxiety. CONCLUSION: The pediatric diagnostic GENE-U scale demonstrated good psychometric performance in this initial evaluation and could be a useful tool for translational genomics researchers, warranting additional validation.

Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of exome sequencing and its impact on diagnostic thinking for patients with rare disease in a publicly funded health care system: A prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic utility of publicly funded clinical exome sequencing (ES) for patients with suspected rare genetic diseases. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 297 probands who met eligibility criteria and received ES across 5 sites in Ontario, Canada, and extracted data from medical records and clinician surveys. Using the Fryback and Thornbury Efficacy Framework, we assessed diagnostic accuracy by examining laboratory interpretation of results and assessed diagnostic thinking by examining the clinical interpretation of results and whether clinical-molecular diagnoses would have been achieved via alternative hypothetical molecular tests. RESULTS: Laboratories reported 105 molecular diagnoses and 165 uncertain results in known and novel genes. Of these, clinicians interpreted 102 of 105 (97%) molecular diagnoses and 6 of 165 (4%) uncertain results as clinical-molecular diagnoses. The 108 clinical-molecular diagnoses were in 104 families (35% diagnostic yield). Each eligibility criteria resulted in diagnostic yields of 30% to 40%, and higher yields were achieved when >2 eligibility criteria were met (up to 45%). Hypothetical tests would have identified 61% of clinical-molecular diagnoses. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate robustness in eligibility criteria and high clinical validity of laboratory results from ES testing. The importance of ES was highlighted by the potential 40% of patients that would have gone undiagnosed without this test.

Identifying Major Barriers to Home Dialysis (The IM-HOME Study): Findings From a National Survey of Patients, Care Partners, and Providers.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Developing strategies to improve home dialysis use requires a comprehensive understanding of barriers. We sought to identify the most important barriers to home dialysis use from the perspective of patients, care partners, and providers. STUDY DESIGN: This is a convergent parallel mixed-methods study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: We convened a 7-member advisory board of patients, care partners, and providers who collectively developed lists of major patient/care partner-perceived barriers and provider-perceived barriers to home dialysis. We used these lists to develop a survey that was distributed to patients, care partners, and providers-through the American Association of Kidney Patients and the National Kidney Foundation. The surveys asked participants to (1) rank their top 3 major barriers (quantitative) and (2) describe barriers to home dialysis (qualitative). ANALYTICAL APPROACH: We compiled a list of the top 3 patient/care partner-perceived and top 3 provider-perceived barriers (quantitative). We also conducted a directed content analysis of open-ended survey responses (qualitative). RESULTS: There were 522 complete responses (233 providers; 289 patients/care partners). The top 3 patient/care partner-perceived barriers were fear of performing home dialysis; lack of space; and the need for home-based support. The top 3 provider-perceived barriers were poor patient education; limited mechanisms for home-based support staff, mental health, and education; and lack of experienced staff. We identified 9 themes through qualitative analysis: limited education; financial disincentives; limited resources; high burden of care; built environment/structure of care delivery that favors in-center hemodialysis; fear and isolation; perceptions of inequities in access to home dialysis; provider perspectives about patients; and patient/provider resiliency. LIMITATIONS: This was an online survey that is subject to nonresponse bias. CONCLUSIONS: The top 3 barriers to home dialysis for patient/care partners and providers incompletely overlap, suggesting the need for diverse strategies that simultaneously address patient-perceived barriers at home and provider-perceived barriers in the clinic. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: There are many barriers to home dialysis use in the United States. However, we know little about which barriers are the most important to patients and clinicians. This makes it challenging to develop strategies to increase home dialysis use. In this study, we surveyed patients, care partners, and clinicians across the country to identify the most important barriers to home dialysis, namely (1) patients/care partners identified fear of home dialysis, lack of space, and lack of home-based support; and (2) clinicians identified poor patient education, limited support for staff and patients, and lack of experienced staff. These findings suggest that patients and clinicians perceive different barriers and that both sets of barriers should be addressed to expand home dialysis use.

Establishing consensus recommendations for long-term osteoporosis care for patients who have attended an Australian fracture liaison service: a Delphi study.

Coordinating healthcare activities between fracture liaison services (FLS) and primary care is challenging. Using a Delphi technique, we developed 34 consensus statements to support improved care coordination across this healthcare transition. PURPOSE: Evidence supporting an optimal coordination strategy between fracture liaison services (FLS) and primary care is lacking. This study aimed to develop consensus statements to support consistency and benchmarking of clinical practice to improve coordination of care for patients transitioning from FLS to primary care following an osteoporotic fracture. METHODS: A Delphi technique was used to develop consensus among a panel of experts, including FLS clinicians (medical and non-medical), general practitioners (GPs), and consumers. RESULTS: Results of a preparatory questionnaire (n = 33) informed the development of 34 statements for review by expert panellists over two Delphi rounds (n = 25 and n = 19, respectively). The majority of participants were from New South Wales (82%), employed as FLS clinicians (78.8%) and working in metropolitan centres (60.6%). Consensus was achieved for 24/34 statements in round one and 8/10 statements in round two. All statements concerning patient education, communication, and the GP-patient relationship achieved consensus. Expert opinions diverged in some areas of clinician roles and responsibilities and long-term monitoring and management recommendations. CONCLUSION: We found clear consensus among experts in many key areas of FLS integration with primary care. While experts agreed that primary care is the most appropriate setting for long-term osteoporosis care, overall confidence in primary care systems to achieve this was low. The role of (and responsibility for) adherence monitoring in a resource-limited setting remains to be defined.

STRIKE-HBV: establishing an HBV screening programme in Kilifi, Kenya-challenges, successes and lessons learnt.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic hepatitis B infection affects 65 million people in the WHO African Region, but only 4.2% of these are diagnosed and 0.2% on treatment. Here, we present a short report describing establishment of a hepatitis B virus (HBV) programme in Kenya. We share experiences, successes and challenges to support development of future programmes. METHODS: From March 2023, we began the 'STRIKE-HBV' Study to identify people living with HBV (PLWHB) in Kilifi, Kenya. We employed local staff and provided education and training. Individuals were identified through three routes: (1) we offered free-of-charge HBV testing for all non-pregnant adults attending Kilifi Country Hospital (KCH) outpatient department; (2) we invited PLWHB to reattend for review; and (3) we invited close contacts of PLWHB for screening and vaccination if HBV was negative. All those seropositive for HBV were offered a comprehensive liver health assessment. RESULTS: We have established a framework for HBV screening, assessment and linkage to care in Kilifi. Between March 2023 and March 2024, we collected data for 80 PLWHB, comprising (1) screening of 1862 people of whom 30 were seropositive, (2) enrolment of 38 people known to be living with HBV and (3) testing of 97 close contacts of PLWHB, of whom 12 were positive. Among a limited subset with elastography data, we identified 9 of 59 as having significant fibrosis, and a further 6 people had laboratory aspartate transaminase (AST) to platelet ratio index (APRI) scores in keeping with fibrosis. We encountered challenges including procurement delays for hepatitis B surface antigen testing kits and HBV vaccinations, and issues accessing liver elastography. CONCLUSIONS: HBV screening was well received by the Kilifi population, has identified people at risk of liver disease progression and is improving linkage to care and vaccination at KCH. Future HBV programmes in WHO Africa can build on this experience as we work to develop accessible, affordable and acceptable care pathways.

Reach of GetCheckedOnline among gay, bisexual, transgender and queer men and Two-Spirit people and correlates of use 5 years after program launch in British Columbia, Canada.

OBJECTIVES: Understanding who uses internet-based sexually transmitted and blood-borne infection (STBBI) services can inform programme implementation, particularly among those most impacted by STBBIs, including gender and sexual minority (GSM) men. GetCheckedOnline, an internet-based STBBI testing service in British Columbia, Canada, launched in 2014. Our objectives were to assess reach, identify factors associated with use of GetCheckedOnline 5 years into implementation and describe reasons for using and not using GetCheckedOnline among GSM men. METHODS: The Sex Now 2019 Survey was an online, cross-sectional survey of GSM men in Canada administered from November 2019 to February 2020. Participants were asked a subset of questions related to use of GetCheckedOnline. Multivariable binary logistic regression modelling was used to estimate associations between correlates and use of GetCheckedOnline. RESULTS: Of 431 British Columbia (BC) participants aware of GetCheckedOnline, 27.6% had tested using the service. Lower odds of having used GetCheckedOnline were found among participants with non-white race/ethnicity (adjusted OR (aOR)=0.41 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.74)) and those living with HIV (aOR=0.23 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.76)). Those who usually tested at a walk-in clinic, relative to a sexual health clinic, had greater odds of using GetCheckedOnline (aOR=3.91 (95% CI 1.36 to 11.61)). The most commonly reported reason for using and not using GetCheckedOnline was convenience (78%) and only accessing the website to see how the service worked (48%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Over a quarter of GSM men in BC aware of GetCheckedOnline had used it. Findings demonstrate the importance of social/structural factors related to use of GetCheckedOnline. Service promotion strategies could highlight its convenience and privacy benefits to enhance uptake.

User-Centered Design of a Preference-Driven Patient Activation Tool for Optimizing Depression Treatment in Integrated Primary Care Settings (The Transform DepCare Study).

BACKGROUND: Few patient engagement tools incorporate the complex patient experiences, contexts, and workflows that limit depression treatment implementation. OBJECTIVE: Describe a user-centered design (UCD) process for operationalizing a preference-driven patient activation tool. DESIGN: Informed by UCD and behavior change/implementation science principles, we designed a preference-driven patient activation prototype for engaging patients in depression treatment. We conducted three usability cycles using different recruitment/implementation approaches: near live/live testing in primary care waiting rooms (V1-2) and lab-based think aloud testing (V3) oversampling older, low-literacy, and Spanish-speaking patients in the community and via EHR algorithms. We elicited clinician and "heuristic" expert input. MAIN MEASURES: We administered the system usability scale (SUS) all three cycles and pre-post V3, the patient activation measure, decisional conflict scale, and depression treatment barriers. We employed descriptive statistics and thematically analyzed observer notes and transcripts for usability constructs. RESULTS: Overall, 43 patients, 3 clinicians, and 5 heuristic (a usability engineering method for identifying usability problems) experts participated. Among patients, 41.9% were ≥ 65 years old, 79.1% female, 23.3% Black, 62.8% Hispanic, and 55.8% Spanish-speaking and 46.5% had ≤ high school education. We described V1-3 usability (67.2, 77.3, 81.8), treatment seeking (92.3%, 87.5%, 92.9%), likelihood/comfort discussing with clinician (76.9%, 87.5%, 100.0%), and pre vs. post decisional conflict (23.7 vs. 15.2), treatment awareness (71.4% vs. 92.9%), interest in antidepressants (7.1% vs. 14.3%), and patient activation (66.8 vs. 70.9), with fewer barriers pertaining to cost/insurance, access/coordination, and self-efficacy/stigma/treatment efficacy. Key themes included digital literacy, understandability, high acceptability for aesthetics, high usefulness of patient/clinician videos, and workflow limitations. We adapted manual entry/visibility/content; added patient activation and a personalized algorithm; and proposed flexible, care manager delivery leveraging clinic screening protocols. DISCUSSION: We provide an example of leveraging UCD to design/adapt a real-world, patient experience and workflow-aligned patient activation tool in diverse populations.

Implementation of Food is Medicine Programs in Healthcare Settings: A Narrative Review.

Food is Medicine (FIM) programs to improve the accessibility of fruits and vegetables (FVs) or other healthy foods among patients with low income and diet-related chronic diseases are promising to improve food and nutrition security in the United States (US). However, FIM programs are relatively new and implementation guidance for healthcare settings using an implementation science lens is lacking. We used a narrative review to describe the evidence base on barriers and facilitators to FIM program integration in US healthcare settings following the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) Framework. Evidence surrounding the EPIS Inner Context was a focus, including constructs Leadership, Organizational Characteristics, Quality and Fidelity Monitoring and Support, Organizational Staffing Processes, and Individual Characteristics. Peer-reviewed and grey literature about barriers and facilitators to FIM programs were of interest, defined as programs that screen and refer eligible patients with diet-related chronic disease experiencing food insecurity to healthy, unprepared foods. Thirty-one sources were included in the narrative review, including 22 peer-reviewed articles, four reports, four toolkits, and one thesis. Twenty-eight sources (90%) described EPIS Inner Context facilitators and 26 sources (84%) described FIM program barriers. The most common barriers and facilitators to FIM programs were regarding Quality and Fidelity Monitoring and Support (e.g., use of electronic medical records for tracking and evaluation, strategies to support implementation) and Organizational Staffing Processes (e.g., clear delineation of staff roles and capacity); although, barriers and facilitators to FIM programs were identified among all EPIS Inner Context constructs. We synthesized barriers and facilitators to create an EPIS-informed implementation checklist for healthcare settings for use among healthcare organizations/providers, partner organizations, and technical assistance personnel. We discuss future directions to align FIM efforts with implementation science terminology and theories, models, and frameworks to improve the implementation evidence base and support FIM researchers and practitioners.