Barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based integrated HIV and behavioral health care: perspectives from seven federal ending the HIV epidemic jurisdictions.

The federal Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative was created to reduce new US HIV infections, largely through pre-exposure prophylaxis and HIV treatments that reduce HIV transmissibility to zero. Behavioral health disorders (mental health and substance use) remain significant barriers to achieving EHE goals. Addressing behavioral health (BH) disorders within HIV primary care settings has been promoted as a critical EHE strategy. Implementation of efficacious HIV-BH care integration and its impact on HIV-related health outcomes is not well documented. In a federally-funded, exploratory phase implementation science study, we used the Collective Impact Framework to engage partners in seven EHE jurisdictions about the feasibility, acceptability, and sustainability of implementing HIV-BH integration interventions within local HIV settings. Partners concluded that full integration will remain the exception unless health systems invest in collaborative practice, professional training, appropriate health technology, and inter-system communication. Partners supported smaller incremental improvements including transdiagnostic approaches to reinforce each team member's sense of value in the shared endeavor. This early phase implementation science study identified research and implementation gaps that are critical to fill to end the HIV epidemic. Both the Collective Impact Framework and implementation science show promise for guiding future implementation of evidence-based HIV-BH intervention integration.

Development of a wellness trust to improve population health: Case-study of a United States urban center.

Across the United States health systems are recognizing the urgency of addressing the social determinants of health in order to improve population health. Wellness trusts, modeled after financial trusts support primary health prevention in community settings, provide an innovative opportunity for better community-clinical linkages, collaboration, and impact. This study aimed to understand the necessary tenets for a wellness trust in Brooklyn, New York (USA) and examined community interest and political will; administrative, financing, and leadership structures; and metrics and data sources to monitor and assess impact. We employed a multi-method design. Key informant interviews (KIIs) (n = 15) were conducted from 7/2016 to 1/2017. A content analysis of grey literature was used to analyze community interest and political will (n = 38). Extant datasets, such as New York City Community District profiles, were reviewed, and a narrative review was used to assess cost-effectiveness of prevention interventions (n = 33). The KIIs and grey literature underwent thematic analysis. Findings indicated healthcare issues dominated the health agenda despite recognition of social determinants of health. Braided funding (discrete funds that are coordinated but tracked separately) and blended funding (funds pooled from multiple sources tracked together) are common funding mechanisms. Robust data systems exist to assess impact. Indicators should address social determinants, performance and impact, be measurable, geographically specific, and include communities. Wellness trusts should be sustainable, engage communities, foster collaboration, and have adequate capacity. The Collective Impact Framework, a mechanism to coordinate and maximize efforts, offers this organizational structure. Wellness trusts are promising mechanisms to advance population health.

Collaboration Between Researchers and Knowledge Users in Health Technology Assessment: A Qualitative Exploratory Study.

BACKGROUND: Collaboration between researchers and knowledge users is increasingly promoted because it could enhance more evidence-based decision-making and practice. These complex relationships differ in form, in the particular goals they are trying to achieve, and in whom they bring together. Although much is understood about why partnerships form, relatively little is known about how collaboration works: how the collaborative process is shaped through the partners' interactions, especially in the field of health technology assessment (HTA)? This study aims at addressing this gap in the literature in the specific context of HTA. METHODS: We used a qualitative descriptive design for this exploratory study. Semi-structured interviews with three researchers and two decision-makers were conducted on the practices related to the collaboration. We also performed document analysis, observation of five team meetings, and informal discussion with the participants. We thematically analyzed data using the structuration theory and a collective impact framework. RESULTS: This study showed that three main contextual factors helped shape the collaboration between researchers and knowledge users: the use of concepts related to each field; the use of related expertise; and a lack of clearly defined roles in the project. Previous experiences with the topic of the research project and a partnership based on "a give and take" relationship emerged as factors of success of this collaboration. CONCLUSION: By shedding light on the structuration of the collaboration between researchers and knowledge users, our findings open the door to a poorly documented field in the area of HTA, and additional studies that build on these early observations are welcome.