Patient and Provider Perspectives on Benefits and Harms of Continuing, Tapering, and Discontinuing Long-Term Opioid Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Given efforts to taper patients off long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) because of known harms, it is important to understand if patients and providers align in LTOT treatment goals. OBJECTIVE: To investigate patient and provider perceptions about the harms and benefits of continuing and discontinuing LTOT. DESIGN: Qualitative study PARTICIPANTS: Patients and providers with experiences with LTOT for pain in two Veterans Health Affairs regions. APPROACH: We conducted semi-structured interviews and analyzed data using rapid qualitative analysis to describe patient and provider preferences about LTOT continuation and discontinuation and non-opioid pain treatments. KEY RESULTS: Participants (n=43) included 28/67 patients and 15/17 providers. When discussing continuing LTOT, patients emphasized the benefits outweighed the harms, whereas providers emphasized the harms. Participants agreed on the benefits of continuing LTOT for improved physical functioning. Provider-reported benefits of continuing LTOT included maintaining the status quo for patients without opioid alternatives or who were at risk for illicit drug use. Participants were aligned regarding the harms of negative side-effects (e.g., constipation) from continued LTOT. In contrast, when discussing LTOT tapering and discontinuation, providers underscored how benefits outweighed the harms, citing patients' improved well-being and pain management with tapering or alternatives. Patients did not foresee benefits to potential LTOT tapers or discontinuation and were worried about pain management in the absence of LTOT. When discussing non-opioid pain treatments, participants emphasized that they were adjunctive to opioid therapy rather than a replacement (except for cannabis). Providers described the importance of mental health services to manage pain, which differed from patients who focused on treatments to improve strength and mobility and reduce pain. CONCLUSIONS: Patients emphasized the benefits of continuing LTOT for pain management and well-being, which differed from providers' emphasis on the benefits of discontinuing LTOT. Patient and provider differences are important for informing patient-centered care and decisions around continuing, tapering, or discontinuing LTOT.

Common Sense Models of Obesity: a Qualitative Investigation of Illness Representations.

BACKGROUND: The Common Sense Model provides a framework to understand health beliefs and behaviors. It includes illness representations comprised of five domains (identity, cause, consequences, timeline, and control/cure). While widely used, it is rarely applied to obesity, yet could explain self-management decisions and inform treatments. This study answered the question, what are patients' illness representations of obesity?; and examined the Common Sense Model's utility in the context of obesity. METHODS: Twenty-four participants with obesity completed semi-structured phone interviews (12 women, 12 men). Directed content analysis of transcripts/notes was used to understand obesity illness representations across the five illness domains. Potential differences by gender and race/ethnicity were assessed. RESULTS: Participants did not use clinical terms to discuss weight. Participants' experiences across domains were interconnected. Most described interacting life systems as causing weight problems and used negative consequences of obesity to identify it as a health threat. The control/cure of obesity was discussed within every domain. Participants focused on health and appearance consequences (the former most salient to older, the latter most salient to younger adults). Weight-related timelines were generally chronic. Women more often described negative illness representations and episodic causes (e.g., pregnancy). No patterns were identified by race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: The Common Sense Model is useful in the context of obesity. Obesity illness representations highlighted complex causes and consequences of obesity and its management. To improve weight-related care, researchers and clinicians should focus on these beliefs in relation to preferred labels for obesity, obesity's most salient consequences, and ways of monitoring change.

Factors Influencing Primary Care Providers' Unneeded Lumbar Spine MRI Orders for Acute, Uncomplicated Low-Back Pain: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines suggest that magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine (LS-MRI) is unneeded during the first 6 weeks of acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. Unneeded LS-MRIs do not improve patient outcomes, lead to unnecessary surgeries and procedures, and cost the US healthcare system about $300 million dollars per year. However, why primary care providers (PCPs) order unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To characterize and explain the factors contributing to PCPs ordering unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans Affairs PCPs identified from administrative data as having high or low rates of guideline-concordant LS-MRI ordering in 2016. APPROACH: Providers were interviewed about their use of LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain and factors contributing to their decision-making. Directed content analysis of transcripts was conducted to identify and compare environmental-, patient-, and provider-level factors contributing to unneeded LS-MRI. KEY RESULTS: Fifty-five PCPs participated (8.6% response rate). Both low (n = 33) and high (n = 22) guideline-concordant providers reported that LS-MRIs were required for specialty care referrals, but they differed in how other environmental factors (stringency of radiology utilization review, management of patient travel burden, and time constraints) contributed to LS-MRI ordering patterns. Low- and high-guideline-concordant providers reported similar patient factors (beliefs in value of imaging and pressure on providers). However, provider groups differed in how provider-level factors (guideline familiarity and agreement, the extent to which they acquiesced to patients, and belief in the value of LS-MRI) contributed to LS-MRI ordering patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Results describe how diverse environmental, patient, and provider factors contribute to unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. Prior research using a single intervention to reduce unneeded LS-MRI has been ineffective. Results suggest that multifaceted de-implementation strategies may be required to reduce unneeded LS-MRI.

A Qualitative Study of Primary Care Providers' Experiences with the Veterans Choice Program.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act (hereafter, Choice Program) seeks to improve access to care by enabling eligible Veterans to receive care from community providers. Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care providers (PCPs) play a key role in making referrals to community specialists, but their frontline experiences with referrals are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To understand VA PCPs' experiences referring patients to community specialists while VA works to expand and refine the implementation of the Choice Program. DESIGN: Qualitative study using interview methods. PARTICIPANTS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with VA primary care providers (N = 72 out of 599 contacted) recruited nationally. APPROACH: Open-ended interview questions elicited PCP perceptions and experiences with referrals to community specialists via the Choice Program. Keywords were identified using automated coding features in ATLAS.ti and evaluated using conventional content analysis to inductively describe the qualitative data. KEY RESULTS: VA PCPs emphasized problems with care coordination and continuity between the VA and community specialists (e.g., "It is extremely difficult for us to obtain and continue continuity of care because there's not much communication with the community specialist"). They described difficulties with tracking the initial referral, coordinating care after receiving community specialty care, accessing community medical records, and aligning community specialists' prescriptions with the VA formulary. CONCLUSIONS: The VA Choice Program provides access to community specialists for VA patients; however, VA primary care providers face challenges tracking referrals to community specialists and in coordinating care. Strategies to improve care coordination between the VA and community providers should focus on providing PCPs with information to follow Veterans throughout the Choice referral process and follow-up.

Engaging High-Need Patients in Intensive Outpatient Programs: A Qualitative Synthesis of Engagement Strategies.

BACKGROUND: Intensive outpatient programs address the complex medical, social, and behavioral needs of individuals who account for disproportionate healthcare costs. Despite their promise, the impact of these programs is often diminished due to patient engagement challenges (i.e., low rates of patient participation and partnership in care). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify intensive outpatient program features and strategies that increase high-need patient engagement in these programs. DESIGN: Qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty program leaders and clinicians from 12 intensive outpatient programs in academic, county, Veterans Affairs, community, and private healthcare settings. APPROACH: A questionnaire and semi-structured interviews were used to identify common barriers to patient engagement in intensive outpatient programs and strategies employed by programs to address these challenges. We used content analysis methods to code patient engagement barriers and strategies and to identify program features that facilitate patient engagement. KEY RESULTS: The most common barriers to patient engagement in intensive outpatient programs included physical symptoms/limitations, mental illness, care fragmentation across providers and services, isolation/lack of social support, financial insecurity, and poor social and neighborhood conditions. Patient engagement strategies included concrete services to support communication and use of recommended services, activities to foster patient trust and relationships with program staff, and counseling to build insight and problem-solving capabilities. Program features that were identified as enhancing engagement efforts included: 1) multidisciplinary teams with diverse skills, knowledge, and personalities to facilitate relationship building; 2) adequate staffing and resources to handle the demands of high-need patients; and 3) a philosophy that permitted flexibility and patient-centeredness. CONCLUSIONS: Promising clinical, interpersonal, and population-based approaches to engaging high-need patients frequently deviate from standard practice and require creative and proactive staff with adequate time, resources, and flexibility to address patients' needs on patients' terms.

Oncologists' Views on Using Value to Guide Cancer Treatment Decisions.

OBJECTIVES: Cancer costs have increased substantially in the past decades, prompting specialty societies to urge oncologists to consider value in clinical decision making. Despite oncologists' crucial role in guiding cancer care, current literature is sparse with respect to the oncologists' views on value. Here, we evaluated oncologists perceptions of the use and measurement of value in cancer care. METHODS: We conducted in-depth, open-ended interviews with 31 US oncologists practicing nationwide in various environments. Oncologists discussed the definition, measurement, and implementation of value. Transcripts were analyzed using matrix and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Oncologists' definitions of value varied greatly. Some described versions of the standard health economic definition of value, that is, cost relative to health outcomes. Many others did not include cost in their definition of value. Oncologists considered patient goals and quality of life as important components of value that they perceived were missing from current value measurement. Oncologists prioritized a patient-centric view of value over societal or other perspectives. Oncologists were inclined to consider the value of a treatment only if they perceived treatment would pose a financial burden to patients. Oncologists had differing opinions regarding who should be responsible for determining whether care is low value but generally felt this should remain within the purview of the oncology community. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists agreed that cost was an important issue, but disagreed about whether cost was involved in value as well as the role of value in guiding treatment. Better clarity and alignment on the definition of and appropriate way to measure value is critical to the success of efforts to improve value in cancer care.

Use of an Emergency Manual During an Intraoperative Cardiac Arrest by an Interprofessional Team: A Positive-Exemplar Case Study of a New Patient Safety Tool.

BACKGROUND: An emergency manual (EM) is a set of evidence-based crisis checklists, or cognitive aids, that can improve team performance. EMs are used in other safety-critical industries, and health care simulation studies have shown their efficacy, but use in clinical settings is nascent. A case study was conducted on the use of an EM during one intraoperative crisis, which entailed the assessment of the impact of the EM's use on teamwork and patient care and the identification of lessons for effectively using EMs during future clinical crises. METHODS: In a case study of a single crisis, an EM was used during a cardiac arrest at a tertiary care hospital that had systematically implemented perioperative EMs. Semistructured interviews were conducted with all six clinicians present, interview transcripts were iteratively coded, and thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: All clinician participants stated that EM use enabled effective team functioning via reducing stress of individual clinicians, fostering a calm work environment, and improving teamwork and communication. These impacts in turn improved the delivery of patient care during a clinical crisis and influenced participants' intended EM use during future appropriate crises. CONCLUSION: In this positive-exemplar case study, an EM was used to improve delivery of evidence-based patient care through effective clinical team functioning. EM use must complement rather than replace good clinician education, judgment, and teamwork. More broadly, understanding why and how things go well via analyzing positive-exemplar case studies, as a converse of root cause analyses for negative events, can be used to identify effective applications of safety innovations.

Why Veterans Choose VA Versus non-VA Emergency Care: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: In ensuring the timely delivery of emergency care to Veterans, Veterans Affairs (VA) offers both emergency care services in its own facilities and, increasingly, purchases care for Veterans in non-VA (community) emergency department (ED) settings. Although in recent years emergency care coverage has become the single largest contributor to VA community care spending, no study to date has examined Veteran decision-making as it relates to ED setting choice. The purpose of this study is to identify and describe reasons why Veterans choose VA versus non-VA emergency care settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Veterans Health Administration data were used to identify geographically diverse Veterans who recently used emergency care. We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews from December 2018 through March 2020 with 50 Veterans to understand the factors Veterans consider when deciding where to obtain ED care. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. We conducted a directed content analysis of interview transcripts and developed a matrix to summarize and categorize each Veteran's decision-making process to compare participants and to identify common patterns. RESULTS: When choosing between VA and non-VA-EDs, Veterans described 3 distinct patterns of decision-making: (1) choosing the closest ED (often community) for acute conditions; (2) traveling farther for VA care due to preference and financial coverage; and (3) selecting VA when both types of ED care were equidistant. Perceptions of community resources, condition-specific needs, financial considerations, and personal preferences dominated the decision-making. For example, most Veterans (74%) rated their acuity as high, and self-perceived severity/urgency of their condition was the most cited factor influencing where Veterans decided to go for ED care. CONCLUSIONS: Our qualitative results help provide insight into how and why Veterans choose to seek emergency care. As the number of Veterans treated in non-VA EDs continues to rise, VA and non-VA ED providers as well as policy makers may benefit from understanding the challenges Veterans face when making this decision.

A Clinical Decision Support Tool for Intimate Partner Violence Screening Among Women Veterans: Development and Qualitative Evaluation of Provider Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Women veterans, compared to civilian women, are especially at risk of experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV), pointing to the critical need for IPV screening and intervention in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). However, implementing paper-based IPV screening and intervention in the VHA has revealed substantial barriers, including health care providers' inadequate IPV training, competing demands, time constraints, and discomfort addressing IPV and making decisions about the appropriate type or level of intervention. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to address IPV screening implementation barriers and hence developed and tested a novel IPV clinical decision support (CDS) tool for physicians in the Women's Health Clinic (WHC), a primary care clinic within the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System. This tool provides intelligent, evidence-based, step-by-step guidance on how to conduct IPV screening and intervention. METHODS: Informed by existing CDS development frameworks, developing the IPV CDS tool prototype involved six steps: (1) identifying the scope of the tool, (2) identifying IPV screening and intervention content, (3) incorporating IPV-related VHA and clinic resources, (4) identifying the tool's components, (5) designing the tool, and (6) conducting initial tool revisions. We obtained preliminary physician feedback on user experience and clinical utility of the CDS tool via the System Usability Scale (SUS) and semistructured interviews with 6 WHC physicians. SUS scores were examined using descriptive statistics. Interviews were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis to extract actionable feedback to inform design updates and improvements. RESULTS: This study includes a detailed description of the IPV CDS tool. Findings indicated that the tool was generally well received by physicians, who indicated good tool usability (SUS score: mean 77.5, SD 12.75). They found the tool clinically useful, needed in their practice, and feasible to implement in primary care. They emphasized that it increased their confidence in managing patients reporting IPV but expressed concerns regarding its length, workflow integration, flexibility, and specificity of information. Several physicians, for example, found the tool too time consuming when encountering patients at high risk; they suggested multiple uses of the tool (eg, an educational tool for less-experienced health care providers and a checklist for more-experienced health care providers) and including more detailed information (eg, a list of local shelters). CONCLUSIONS: Physician feedback on the IPV CDS tool is encouraging and will be used to improve the tool. This study offers an example of an IPV CDS tool that clinics can adapt to potentially enhance the quality and efficiency of their IPV screening and intervention process. Additional research is needed to determine the tool's clinical utility in improving IPV screening and intervention rates and patient outcomes (eg, increased patient safety, reduced IPV risk, and increased referrals to mental health treatment).

Why may patients with spinal cord injury be overlooked for obesity screening in the Veterans Health Administration? Qualitative research of the perspectives of patients and healthcare providers.

PURPOSE: We sought to describe factors influencing reduced rates of obesity screening for patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) in the United States Veterans Health Administration (VA) and to foster potential solutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers and patients with SCI who were recruited nationally from diverse VAs. We performed rapid qualitative analysis using content analysis of interview data. RESULTS: There were 36 providers and 37 patients. We identified provider, patient, and system level barriers to obesity screening for individuals with SCI. Overarching barriers involved provider and patient perceptions that obesity screening is a low priority compared to other health conditions, and body mass index is of low utility. Other obesity screening barriers were related to measuring weight (i.e., insufficient equipment, unknown wheelchair weight, staffing shortages, measurement errors, reduced access to annual screening, insufficient time, patient preference not to be weighed) and measuring height (i.e., insufficient guidance and equipment to this population, measurement errors). CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to obesity screenings exist for patients with SCI receiving care in VA. Healthcare provider and patient interviews suggest possible solutions, including standardizing height and weight measurement processes, ensuring equipment availability in clinics, clarifying guidelines, and offering support to providers and patients.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONIndividuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) have higher rates of obesity, but are often overlooked for annual obesity screening, even in clinic settings designed to care for individuals with SCI.Results may help tailor guidelines/education for healthcare and rehabilitation providers offering them guidance for improving obesity screening for individuals with SCI by standardizing weight and height measurement and documentation. To facilitate this, findings highlight the need for resources, such as ensuring clinics have necessary equipment, and increasing patient access to support and equipment.Improving the provision of obesity screening for individuals with SCI is necessary to improve health outcomes and patient satisfaction with care.

Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA): a consensus-based framework for designing, conducting, and reporting.

BACKGROUND: The use of rapid qualitative methods has increased substantially over the past decade in quality improvement and health services research. These methods have gained traction in implementation research and practice, wherein real-time adjustments are often made to optimize processes and outcomes. This brisk increase begs the questions: what does rigor entail in projects that use rapid qualitative analysis (RQA)? How do we define a pragmatic framework to help research teams design and conduct rigorous and valid rapid qualitative projects? How can authors articulate rigor in their methods descriptions? Lastly, how can reviewers evaluate the rigor of rapid qualitative projects?. METHODS: A team of seven interdisciplinary qualitative methods experts developed a framework for ensuring rigor and validity in RQA and methods suitable for this analytic approach. We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to identify gaps in the literature and then drew upon literature, standard procedures within our teams, and a repository of rapid qualitative training materials to create a planning and reporting framework. We iteratively refined this framework through 11 group working meetings (60-90 minutes each) over the course of one year and invited feedback on items to ensure their completeness, clarity, and comprehensibility. RESULTS: The Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA) framework is organized progressively across phases from design to dissemination, as follows: 1) rigorous design (rationale and staffing), 2) semi-structured data collection (pilot and planning), 3) RQA: summary template development (accuracy and calibration), 4) RQA: matrix analysis (matrices), and 5) rapid qualitative data synthesis. Eighteen recommendations across these sections specify best practices for rigor and validity. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid qualitative methods play a central role in implementation evaluations, with the potential to yield prompt information and insights about context, processes, and relationships. However, guidance on how to assess rigor is nascent. The PARRQA framework enhances the literature by offering criteria to ensure appropriate planning for and assessment of rigor in projects that involve RQA. This framework provides a consensus-based resource to support high-level qualitative methodological rigor in implementation science.

Nutrition and eating beliefs and behaviors among individuals with spinal cord injuries and disorders: Healthy or misconceived?

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Nutrition knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors have important implications for managing and preventing chronic and injury-related secondary conditions in persons with spinal cord injuries and disorders (SCI/D). Yet, the unique dietary and nutritional needs and recommendations specific to individuals with SCI/D and their eating beliefs and behaviors have been understudied. Aim is to describe nutrition and eating beliefs and behaviors from the perspectives of individuals with SCI/D. RESEARCH METHOD/DESIGN: Descriptive qualitative design using in-depth semistructured interviews with a national sample of veterans with SCI/D (n = 33). Audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim transcripts were coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants were male (61%), aged 29-84 years, and 55% had tetraplegia. Five key themes were identified: extreme fasting/caloric restriction, perceived healthy eating behaviors, perceived unhealthy eating behaviors, modified eating behaviors due to SCI/D-related symptoms, and food/preparation choices based on abilities/independence and access. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Nutrition among veterans with SCI/D may be impacted by many factors, such as nutrition knowledge and beliefs/behaviors about "healthy" and "unhealthy" nutrition, fasting, caloric restriction, imbalanced intake of macro- and micronutrients, overconsumption relative to energy needs, injury-related secondary complications, postinjury body composition and function changes, impairments related to satiety and hunger signals, and difficulty in obtaining and preparing food. Study findings provide many areas that would benefit from intervention. Findings can be used to inform ideal nutrition and healthy eating beliefs and behaviors which are important because nutritional inadequacies can lead to diet-related diseases, may exacerbate SCI secondary conditions, and lead to poor overall health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Understanding pathways from implementation to sustainment: a longitudinal, mixed methods analysis of promising practices implemented in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the United States largest learning health system. The Diffusion of Excellence (DoE) program is a large-scale model of diffusion that identifies and diffuses evidence-informed practices across VHA. During the period of 2016-2021, 57 evidence-informed practices were implemented across 82 VHA facilities. This setting provides a unique opportunity to understand sustainment determinants and pathways. Our objective was to characterize the longitudinal pathways of practices as they transition from initial implementation to long-term sustainment at each facility. METHODS: A longitudinal, mixed-methods evaluation of 82 VHA facilities. Eighty-two facility representatives, chosen by leadership as points-of-contact for 57 DoE practices, were eligible for post-implementation interviews and annual sustainment surveys. Primary outcomes (implementation, sustainment), and secondary outcomes (institutionalization, effectiveness, anticipated sustainment) at four time-points were collected. We performed descriptive statistics and directed content analysis using Hailemariam et al.'s factors influencing sustainment. RESULTS: After approximately five years post-implementation (e.g., 2021 sustainment outcomes), of the 82 facilities, about one-third fully sustained their practice compared to one-third that did not fully sustain their practice because it was in a "liminal" stage (neither sustained nor discontinued) or permanently discontinued. The remaining one-third of facilities had missing 2021 sustainment outcomes. A higher percentage of facilities (70%) had inconsistent primary outcomes (changing over time) compared to facilities (30%) with consistent primary outcomes (same over time). Thirty-four percent of facilities with sustained practices reported resilience since they overcame implementation and sustainment barriers. Facilities with sustained practices reported more positive secondary outcomes compared to those that did not sustain their practice. Key factors facilitating practice sustainment included: demonstrating practice effectiveness/benefit, sufficient organizational leadership, sufficient workforce, and adaptation/alignment with local context. Key factors hindering practice sustainment included: insufficient workforce, not able to maintain practice fidelity/integrity, critical incidents related to the COVID-19 pandemic, organizational leadership did not support sustainment of practice, and no ongoing support. CONCLUSIONS: We identified diverse pathways from implementation to sustainment, and our data underscore that initial implementation outcomes may not determine long-term sustainment outcomes. This longitudinal evaluation contributes to understanding impacts of the DoE program, including return on investment, achieving learning health system goals, and insights into achieving high-quality healthcare in VHA.

Veterans' Experiences With Accessing Community Emergency Care.

INTRODUCTION: Under current regulations, there are three separate authorities for which the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) can pay for emergency medical care received by Veterans in the community. The three VHA authorities have overlapping criteria and eligibility requirements that contribute to a complex and confusing landscape for Veterans when they obtain emergency care in the community. Given the intricacies in how VHA provides coverage for community emergency care and the desire to provide seamless Veteran-centric care, it is imperative to understand Veterans' experiences with navigating coverage for community emergency care. The purpose of this study was to elicit feedback from Veterans about their experiences with and perceptions of community emergency care coverage paid for by VHA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Veterans Health Administration data were used to identify geographically diverse Veterans who recently used emergency care. We conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 50 Veterans to understand their VHA coverage and experiences with accessing community emergency care. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. We conducted directed content analysis of interview transcripts. RESULTS: Veterans emphasized three major concerns with navigating community emergency care: (1) they lack information about benefits and eligibility when they need it most, (2) they require assistance with medical billing to avoid financial hardship and future delays in care, and (3) they desire multimodal communication about VHA policies or updates in emergency coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the challenges Veterans experience in understanding VHA coverage for community emergency care. Feedback suggests that improving information, support, and communication may help Veterans make timely, informed decisions when experiencing unexpected illness or injury.

Interaction between increasing body mass index and spinal cord injury to the probability of developing a diagnosis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Background: The prevalence of obesity and comorbidities is high in the population with spinal cord injury (SCI). We sought to determine the effect of SCI on the functional form of the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and risk of developing nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and assess whether SCI-specific mapping of BMI to risk of developing NAFLD is needed. Methods: Longitudinal cohort study comparing Veterans Health Administration patients with a diagnosis of SCI to a 1:2 matched control group without SCI. The relationship between BMI and development of NAFLD at any time was assessed with propensity score matched Cox regression models; NAFLD development at 10-year with a propensity score matched logistic model. The positive predictive value of developing NAFLD at 10 years was calculated for BMI 19-45 kg/m2. Results: 14,890 individuals with SCI met study inclusion criteria, and 29,780 Non-SCI individuals in matched control group. Overall, 9.2% in SCI group and 7.3% in Non-SCI group developed NAFLD during the study period. A logistic model assessing the relationship between BMI and the probability of developing a diagnosis of NAFLD demonstrated that the probability of developing disease increased as BMI increased in both cohorts. The probability was significantly higher in the SCI cohort at each BMI threshold (p < 0.01), and increased at a higher rate compared with the Non-SCI cohort as BMI increased 19-45 kg/m2. Positive predictive value for developing a diagnosis of NAFLD was higher in the SCI group for any given BMI threshold from 19 kg/m2 to BMI 45 kg/m2. Conclusions: The probability of developing NAFLD is greater in individuals with SCI than without SCI, at every BMI level 19 kg/m2 to 45 kg/m2. Individuals with SCI may warrant a higher level of suspicion and closer screening for NAFLD. The association of SCI and BMI is not linear.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals living with spinal cord injury: A qualitative study.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as experienced and reported by individuals living with a spinal cord injury (SCI). RESEARCH METHOD/DESIGN: Descriptive qualitative design using in-depth semistructured interviews with individuals with SCI (n = 33) followed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three main themes described impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. (a) Impact on health care use; subthemes elaborated that this was attributable to in-person health care facility restrictions or individual decisions to delay care. Individuals with SCI experienced lapses in primary and SCI-specialty care, rehabilitation/therapy services, and home care, but some made use of telehealth services. (b) Impact on weight and/or weight management lifestyle behaviors; subthemes discussed that engagement in physical activity declined because of fitness center closures, recreational activity cancellations, and safety precautions limiting community-based and outdoor activities. The pandemic disrupted participants' independence in purchasing and making preferred food selections which impacted healthy eating. Participants ate due to boredom, at nonmealtimes, and consumed unhealthy foods during the pandemic. (c) Impact on psychosocial factors; included subthemes noting reduced social interactions, social participation, and ability to pursue pastimes with family, friends, and groups they belonged to. The pandemic also triggered emotional reactions such as worry, fear, doubt, demotivation, and feelings of social isolation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the magnitude of consequences faced by individuals with SCI when restrictions to health care, healthy lifestyle endeavors, and social participation occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings may inform SCI health care providers on what is needed in response to future public health or natural disaster crises. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Sustainment of diverse evidence-informed practices disseminated in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA): initial development and piloting of a pragmatic survey tool.

BACKGROUND: There are challenges associated with measuring sustainment of evidence-informed practices (EIPs). First, the terms sustainability and sustainment are often falsely conflated: sustainability assesses the likelihood of an EIP being in use in the future while sustainment assesses the extent to which an EIP is (or is not) in use. Second, grant funding often ends before sustainment can be assessed. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE) program is one of few large-scale models of diffusion; it seeks to identify and disseminate practices across the VHA system. The DoE sponsors "Shark Tank" competitions, in which leaders bid on the opportunity to implement a practice with approximately 6 months of implementation support. As part of an ongoing evaluation of the DoE, we sought to develop and pilot a pragmatic survey tool to assess sustainment of DoE practices. METHODS: In June 2020, surveys were sent to 64 facilities that were part of the DoE evaluation. We began analysis by comparing alignment of quantitative and qualitative responses; some facility representatives reported in the open-text box of the survey that their practice was on a temporary hold due to COVID-19 but answered the primary outcome question differently. As a result, the team reclassified the primary outcome of these facilities to Sustained: Temporary COVID-Hold. Following this reclassification, the number and percent of facilities in each category was calculated. We used directed content analysis, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to analyze open-text box responses. RESULTS: A representative from forty-one facilities (64%) completed the survey. Among responding facilities, 29/41 sustained their practice, 1/41 partially sustained their practice, 8/41 had not sustained their practice, and 3/41 had never implemented their practice. Sustainment rates increased between Cohorts 1-4. CONCLUSIONS: The initial development and piloting of our pragmatic survey allowed us to assess sustainment of DoE practices. Planned updates to the survey will enable flexibility in assessing sustainment and its determinants at any phase after adoption. This assessment approach can flex with the longitudinal and dynamic nature of sustainment, including capturing nuances in outcomes when practices are on a temporary hold. If additional piloting illustrates the survey is useful, we plan to assess the reliability and validity of this measure for broader use in the field.

Supporting Veteran's Administration Medical Center Directors' Decisions When Adopting Innovative Practices: Development and Implementation of the "QuickView" and "WishList" Tools.

Background Since 2015, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence Program has supported spread of practices developed by frontline employees. Shark Tank-style competitions encourage "Sharks" nationwide (VHA medical center/regional directors) to bid for the opportunity to implement practices at their institutions. Methods The authors evaluated bidding strategies (2016-2020), developing the "QuickView" practice comparator to promote informed bidding. Program leaders distributed QuickView and revised versions in subsequent competitions. Our team utilized in-person observation, online chats after the competition, bidder interviews, and bid analysis to evaluate QuickView use. Bids were ranked based on demonstrated understanding of resources required for practice implementation. Results Sharks stated that QuickView supported preparation before the competition and suggested improvements. Our revised tool reported necessary staff time and incorporated a "WishList" from practice finalists detailing minimum requirements for successful implementation. Bids from later years reflected increased review of facilities' current states before the competition and increased understanding of the resources needed for implementation. Percentage of bids describing local need for the practice rose from 2016 to 2020: 4.7% (6/127); 62.1% (54/87); 78.3% (36/46); 80.6% (29/36); 89.7% (26/29). Percentage of bids committing specific resources rose following QuickView introduction: 81.1% (103/127) in 2016, 69.0% (60/87) in 2017, then 73.9% (34/46) in 2018, 88.9% (32/36) in 2019, and 89.7% (26/29) in 2020. Discussion In the years following QuickView/WishList implementation, bids reflected increased assessment before the competition of both local needs and available resources. Conclusion Selection of a new practice for implementation requires an understanding of local need, necessary resources, and fit. QuickView and WishList appear to support these determinations.

Facilitating future implementation and translation to clinical practice: The Implementation Planning Assessment Tool for clinical trials.

Implementation assessment plans are crucial for clinical trials to achieve their full potential. Without a proactive plan to implement trial results, it can take decades for one-fifth of effective interventions to be adopted into routine care settings. The Veterans Health Administration Office of Research and Development is undergoing a systematic transformation to embed implementation planning in research protocols through the Cooperative Studies Program, its flagship clinical research program. This manuscript has two objectives: 1) to introduce an Implementation Planning Assessment (IPA) Tool that any clinical trialist may use to facilitate post-trial implementation of interventions found to be effective and 2) to provide a case study demonstrating the IPA Tool's use. The IPA Tool encourages study designers to initially consider rigorous data collection to maximize acceptability of the intervention by end-users. It also helps identify and prepare potential interested parties at local and national leadership levels to ensure, upon trial completion, interventions can be integrated into programs, technologies, and policies in a sustainable way. The IPA Tool can alleviate some of the overwhelming nature of implementation science by providing a practical guide based on implementation science principles for researchers desiring to scale up and spread effective, clinical trial-tested interventions to benefit patients.