Search

The COTAT (Collaborative Opioid Taper After Trauma) Study was a randomized trial of an opioid taper support program using a physician assistant (PA) to provide pain and opioid treatment guidance to primary care providers assuming care for adult patients with moderate to severe trauma discharged from a Level I trauma center on opioid therapy. Patients were recruited, assessed, and randomized individually by a surgery research recruitment team one to two days prior to discharge to home. Participants randomized to the opioid taper support program were contacted by phone within a few days of discharge by the PA interventionist to confirm enrollment and their primary care provider (PCP). The intervention consisted of PA support as needed to the PCP concerning pain and opioid care at weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 after discharge or until the PCP office indicated they no longer needed support or the patient had tapered off opioids. The PA was supervised by a pain physician-psychiatrist, a family physician, and a trauma surgeon. Patients randomized to usual care received standard hospital discharge instructions and written information on managing opioid medications after discharge. Trial results were analyzed using repeated measures analysis. 37 participants were randomized to the intervention and 36 were randomized to usual care. The primary outcomes of the trial were pain, enjoyment, general activity (PEG score) and mean daily opioid dose at 3 and 6 months after hospital discharge. Treatment was unblinded but assessment was blinded. No significant differences in PEG or opioid outcomes were noted at either time point. Physical function at 3 and 6 months and pain interference at 6 months were significantly better in the usual care group. No significant harms of the intervention were noted. COVID-19 (corona virus 2019) limited recruitment of high-risk opioid tolerant subjects, and limited contact between the PA interventionist and the participants and the PCPs. Our opioid taper support program failed to improve opioid and pain outcomes, since both control and intervention groups tapered opioids and improved PEG scores after discharge. Future trials of post-trauma opioid taper support with populations at higher risk of persistent opioid use are needed. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov under NCT04275258 19/02/2020. This trial was funded by a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to the University of Washington Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center (R49 CE003087, PI: Monica S. Vavilala, MD). The funder had no role in the analysis or interpretation of the data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Factors associated with treatment retention on medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in rural settings are poorly understood. This study examines associations between social determinants of health (SDoH) and MOUD retention among patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) in rural primary care settings. Methods: We analyzed patient electronic health records from 6 rural clinics. Participants (N = 575) were adult patients with OUD and had any prescription for MOUD from October 2019 to April 2020. MOUD retention was measured by MOUD days and continuity defined as continuous 180 MOUD days with no more than a 7-day gap. Mixed-effect regressions assessed associations between the outcomes and SDoH (Medicaid insurance, social deprivation index [SDI], driving time from home to the clinic), telehealth use, and other covariates. Results: Mean patient MOUD days were 127 days (SD = 50.7 days). Living in more disadvantaged areas (based on SDI) (adjusted relative risk [aRR]: 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98–0.99) and having more than an hour (compared with an hour or less) driving time from home to clinic (aRR: 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93–0.97) were associated with fewer MOUD days. Using telehealth was associated with more MOUD days (aRR: 1.23; 95% CI, 1.21–1.26). In this cohort, 21.7% of the participants were retained on MOUD for at least 180 days. SDoH and use of telehealth were not associated with having continuity of MOUD. Conclusions: Addressing SDoH (eg, SDI) and providing telehealth (eg, improvements in public transportation, internet access) may improve MOUD days in rural settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of adding various forms of enhanced external support to practice facilitation on primary care practices' clinical quality measure (CQM) performance. METHODS Primary care practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho were eligible if they had fewer than 10 full-time clinicians. Practices were randomized to practice facilitation only, practice facilitation and shared learning, practice facilitation and educational outreach visits, or practice facilitation and both shared learning and educational outreach visits. All practices received up to 15 months of support. The primary outcome was the CQM for blood pressure control. Secondary outcomes were CQMs for appropriate aspirin therapy and smoking screening and cessation. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat approach. RESULTS Of 259 practices recruited, 209 agreed to be randomized. Only 42% of those offered educational outreach visits and 27% offered shared learning participated in these enhanced supports. CQM performance improved within each study arm for all 3 cardiovascular disease CQMs. After adjusting for differences between study arms, CQM improvements in the 3 enhanced practice support arms of the study did not differ significantly from those seen in practices that received practice facilitation alone (omnibus P = .40 for blood pressure CQM). Practices randomized to receive both educational outreach visits and shared learning, however, were more likely to achieve a blood pressure performance goal in 70% of patients compared with those randomized to practice facilitation alone (relative risk = 2.09; 95% CI, 1.16-3.76). CONCLUSIONS Although we found no significant differences in CQM performance across study arms, the ability of a practice to reach a target level of performance may be enhanced by adding both educational outreach visits and shared learning to practice facilitation. Key words: primary health care; cardiovascular disease; quality improvement; chronic illness; prevention; health promotion; quantitative methods; health services; organizational change; practice-based research, INTRODUCTION Past efforts to transform primary care have included practice redesign based on medical home principles and adoption of electronic health records. (1-4) More recently, primary care practices face increasing [...]

PURPOSE Six key elements of opioid medication management redesign in primary care have been previously identified. Here, we examine the effect of implementing these Six Building Blocks on opioid-prescribing practices. METHODS Six rural-serving organizations with 20 clinic locations received support for 15 months during the period October 2015 to May 2017 to implement the Six Building Blocks. Patients undergoing long-term opioid therapy (LtOT) at these study sites were compared with patients undergoing LtOT enrolled in a regional health plan who did not receive care at the study sites but who resided in the same primary care service areas (control group). Outcomes were monthly trend in the proportion of patients undergoing LtOT prescribed a >100 morphine equivalent dose (MED) of opioids daily and the total number of patients receiving an opioid prescription. An interrupted time series using difference- indifference analysis was used for tests of significance. RESULTS The proportion of patients prescribed a >100 MED of opioids daily decreased 2.2% (11.8% to 9.6%) among patients at the intervention clinics and 1.3% (14.0% to 12.7%) among patients in the control group. The rate of decrease was significantly greater among study patients than among patients in the control group (P = .018). The rate of decrease in the number of patients on LtOT at intervention clinics increased during the intervention period compared with the preintervention period (P CONCLUSIONS Efforts to redesign opioid medication management in primary care resulted in a significant decrease in opioid prescribing. Future research is needed to determine if these results are generalizable to other settings and to assess implications for patient-reported outcomes., INTRODUCTION Use of opioid medication long term for chronic pain has contributed to an epidemic of opioid overdose and addiction. (1) Although rates of opioid prescribing have moderated in recent [...]

Purpose: To investigate the prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) and medication treatment for OUD (MOUD) receipt in rural primary care settings and identify characteristics associated with MOUD among patients with OUD. Methods: Secondary analyses based on electronic health records of all adult patients who visited 1 of the 6 rural primary care clinic sites from October 2019 to January 2021. Mixed effects logistic regression was conducted to assess MOUD receipt (Y/N) in relation to patient characteristics (eg, demographics, other substance use disorders [SUDs], mental health disorders, and chronic pain) and the number of MOUD prescribers per clinic. Findings: The prevalence of OUD varied from 0.7% to 8.2% (Mean [SD] = 3.3% [95% CI: 0.4, 6.1]) among 36,762 primary care patients across 6 clinic sites. Among 1,164 patients with OUD, on average 50.1% received MOUD (95% CI: 28.0, 72.3). Patients in clinics with more than 3 MOUD prescribers had more than 3 times the odds of receiving MOUD (OR = 3.42; 95% CI, 1.22‐9.62) as those in clinics with fewer than 3 prescribers. MOUD was positively associated with younger age (18‐30 [OR = 6.97; 95% CI, 3.37‐14.42], 31‐64 [OR = 5.03; 95% CI, 2.64‐9.57], relative to those 65 and older), having other co‐occurring SUDs (OR = 3.77; 95% CI, 2.57‐5.52), being male (OR = 1.50; 95% CI, 1.12‐2.01), and negatively associated with having chronic pain disorders (OR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50‐0.94). Conclusions: The prevalence of OUD and MOUD are high but vary considerably across rural primary care clinics; primary care MOUD prescribers play a key role on MOUD access in rural settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnosis codes are often used in research to identify patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), but their accuracy for this purpose is not fully evaluated. This study describes application of ICD‐10 diagnosis codes for opioid use, dependence and abuse from an electronic health record (EHR) data extraction using data from the clinics' OUD patient registries and clinician/staff EHR entries. Design: Cross‐sectional observational study. Setting: Four rural primary care clinics in Washington and Idaho, USA. Participants: 307 patients. Measurements This study used three data sources from each clinic: (1) a limited dataset extracted from the EHR, (2) a clinic‐based registry of patients with OUD and (3) the clinician/staff interface of the EHR (e.g. progress notes, problem list). Data source one included records with six commonly applied ICD‐10 codes for opioid use, dependence and abuse: F11.10 (opioid abuse, uncomplicated), F11.20 (opioid dependence, uncomplicated), F11.21 (opioid dependence, in remission), F11.23 (opioid dependence with withdrawal), F11.90 (opioid use, unspecified, uncomplicated) and F11.99 (opioid use, unspecified with unspecified opioid‐induced disorder). Care coordinators used data sources two and three to categorize each patient identified in data source one: (1) confirmed OUD diagnosis, (2) may have OUD but no confirmed OUD diagnosis, (3) chronic pain with no evidence of OUD and (4) no evidence for OUD or chronic pain. Findings F11.10, F11.21 and F11.99 were applied most frequently to patients who had clinical diagnoses of OUD (64%, 89% and 79%, respectively). F11.20, F11.23 and F11.90 were applied to patients who had a diagnostic mix of OUD and chronic pain without OUD. The four clinics applied codes inconsistently. Conclusions: Lack of uniform application of ICD diagnosis codes make it challenging to use diagnosis code data from EHR to identify a research population of persons with opioid use disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE Patient outcomes can improve when primary care and behavioral health providers use a collaborative system of care, but integrating these services is difficult. We tested the effectiveness of a practice intervention for improving patient outcomes by enhancing integrated behavioral health (IBH) activities. METHODS We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention combined practice redesign, quality improvement coaching, provider and staff education, and collaborative learning. At baseline and 2 years, staff at 42 primary care practices completed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) as a measure of IBH. Adult patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) survey. Primary outcomes were the change in 8 PROMIS-29 domain scores. Secondary outcomes included change in level of integration. RESULTS Intervention assignment had no effect on change in outcomes reported by 2,426 patients who completed both baseline and 2-year surveys. Practices assigned to the intervention improved PIP workflow scores but not PIP total scores. Baseline PIP total score was significantly associated with patient-reported function, independent of intervention. Active practices that completed intervention workbooks (n = 13) improved patient-reported outcomes and practice integration (P = .05) compared with other active practices (n = 7). CONCLUSION Intervention assignment had no effect on change in patient outcomes; however, we did observe improved patient outcomes among practices that entered the study with greater IBH. We also observed more improvement of integration and patient outcomes among active practices that completed the intervention compared to active practices that did not. Additional research is needed to understand how implementation efforts to enhance IBH can best reach patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The use of telemedicine (TM) has accelerated in recent years, yet research on the implementation and effectiveness of TM‐delivered medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) has been limited. This study investigated the feasibility of implementing a care coordination model involving MOUD delivered via an external TM provider for the purpose of expanding access to MOUD for patients in rural settings. Methods: The study tested a care coordination model in 6 rural primary care sites by establishing referral and coordination between the clinic and a TM company for MOUD. The intervention spanned approximately 6 months from July/August 2020 to January 2021, coinciding with the peak of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Each clinic tracked patients with OUD in a registry during the intervention period. A pre‐/post‐intervention design (N = 6) was used to assess the clinic‐level outcome as patient‐days on MOUD based on patient electronic health records. Findings: All clinics implemented critical components of the intervention, with an overall TM referral rate of 11.7% among patients in the registry. Five of the 6 sites showed an increase in patient‐days on MOUD during the intervention period compared to the 6‐month period before the intervention (mean increase per 1,000 patients: 132 days, P =.08, Cohen's d = 0.55). The largest increases occurred in clinics that lacked MOUD capacity or had a greater number of patients initiating MOUD during the intervention period. Conclusions: To expand access to MOUD in rural settings, the care coordination model is most effective when implemented in clinics that have negligible or limited MOUD capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent value-based payment reforms in the U.S. called for empirical data on how primary care practices of varying characteristics fund their integrated behavioral health services. To describe payment strategies used by U.S. primary care practices to fund behavioral health integration and compare strategies between practices with and without hospital affiliation.Baseline data were used and collected from 44 practices participating in a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial of behavioral health integration. Data included practice characteristics and payment strategies—fee-for-service payment, pay-for-performance incentives, grants, and graduate medical education funds. Descriptive and comparative analyses using Fisher's exact tests and independent T -tests were conducted. The sample had 26 (59.1%) hospital-affiliated (hospital/health system-owned, academic medical centers and hospital-affiliated practices) and 18 (40.9%) non-hospital-affiliated practices (community health centers/federally qualified health centers and privately-owned practices). Most practices (88.6%) received payments through fee-for-service; 63.6% received pay-for-performance incentives; 31.8% received grant funds. Collaborative Care Management billing (CPT) codes were used in six (13.6%) practices. Over half (53.8%) of hospital-affiliated practices funded their behavioral health services through fee-for-service and pay-for-performance incentives only, as opposed to two-thirds (66.7%) of non-hospital-affiliated practices required additional support from grants and/or general medical education funds. Primary care practices support behavioral health integration through diverse payment strategies. More hospital-affiliated practices compared to non-hospital-affiliated practices funded integrated behavioral health services through fee-for-service and pay-for-performance incentives. Practices without hospital affiliation relied on multiple funding streams including grants and/or general medical education funds, suggesting their approach to financial sustainment may be more precarious or challenging, compared to hospital-affiliated practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent public health mitigation strategies resulted in rapid and significant changes to delivery of primary care. The field of primary care faced an unprecedented dual challenge of providing routine care to patients while ensuring patient and staff safety and managing patients with a highly transmissible disease. This study describes how a diverse group of primary care practices addressed these challenges at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, in Spring 2020. Methods: A cross-sectional electronic survey of representatives from primary care practices in the WWAMI region Practice and Research Network (WPRN). Survey topics included clinical workforce, operations, and use of telemedicine in the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: To safely manage patients with COVID-19 symptoms all clinics modified operations; 81.3% diverted patients with respiratory symptoms to a telemedicine evaluation, 68.8% diverted these patients to be seen in-person at another location, and 75% made in-clinic changes to maintain safety. The set of operational changes employed by clinics was diverse. To continue to provide routine patient care, all clinics employed telemedicine. Over 80% of clinics had never used telemedicine prior to March 2020. Conclusions: A diverse group of primary care clinics all rapidly implemented a variety of operational adaptations to address patient needs and maintain patient and staff safety at the onset of the COVID- 19 pandemic. Telemedicine, together with other measures, provided critical pathways for maintaining delivery of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colorectal cancer screening uptake is low, particularly among individuals enrolled in Medicaid. To the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the effectiveness of direct-to-member outreach by Medicaid health insurance plans to raise colorectal cancer screening use, nor how best to deliver such outreach.Methods: BeneFIT is a hybrid implementation-effectiveness study of 2 program models that health plans developed for a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) intervention. The programs differed with regard to whether they used a centralized approach (Health Plan Washington) or collaborated with health centers (Health Plan Oregon). The primary implementation outcome of the current study was the percentage of eligible enrollees to whom the plans delivered each intervention component. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of FIT completion within 6 months of mailing of the introductory letter.Results: The health plans identified 12,000 eligible enrollees (8551 in Health Plan Washington and 3449 in Health Plan Oregon). Health Plan Washington mailed an introductory letter and FIT kit to 8551 enrollees (100%) and delivered a reminder call to 839 (10.3% of the 8132 attempted). Health Plan Oregon mailed an introductory letter, and a letter and FIT kit plus a reminder postcard to 2812 enrollees (81.5%) and 2650 enrollees (76.8%), respectively. FIT completion rates were 18.2% (1557 of 8551 enrollees) in Health Plan Washington. In Health Plan Oregon, completion rates were 17.4% (488 of 2812 enrollees) among enrollees who were mailed an introductory letter and 18.3% (484 of 2650 enrollees) among enrollees who also were mailed a FIT kit plus reminder postcard.Conclusions: The implementation of mailed FIT outreach by health plans may be effective and could reach many individuals at risk of developing colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health insurance plans are increasingly offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but few studies have compared the outcomes of different program models (eg, invitation strategies). Methods: This study compares the outcomes of 2 health plan–based mailed FIT program models. In the first program (2016), FIT kits were mailed to all eligible enrollees; in the second program (2018), FIT kits were mailed only to enrollees who opted in after an outreach phone call. Participants in this observational study included dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees who were aged 50 to 75 years and were due for CRC screening (1799 in 2016 and 1906 in 2018). Six‐month FIT completion rates, implementation outcomes (eg, mailed FITs sent and reminders attempted), and program‐related health plan costs for each program are described. Results: All 1799 individuals in 2016 were sent an introductory letter and a FIT kit. In 2018, all 1906 were sent an introductory letter, and 1905 received at least 1 opt‐in call attempt, with 410 (21.5%) sent a FIT. The FIT completion rate was 16.2% (292 of 1799 [95% CI, 14.5%‐17.9%]) in 2016 and 14.6% (278 of 1906 [95% CI, 13.0%‐16.2%]) in 2018 (P =.36). The overall implementation costs were higher in 2016 ($40,156) than 2018 ($34,899), with the cost per completed FIT slightly higher in 2016 ($138) than 2018 ($126). Conclusions: An opt‐in mailed FIT program achieved FIT completion rates similar to those of a program mailing to all dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees. Lay Summary: Health insurance plans can use different program models to successfully mail fecal test kits for colorectal cancer screening to dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees, with nearly 1 in 6 enrollees completing fecal testing. In this study, a health insurance plan demonstrates its ability to deliver 2 different mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) program models, with vendors used to manage some program elements. These mailed FIT programs began to close gaps in colorectal cancer screening rates in the health plan's dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program hubs are well-positioned to advance dissemination and implementation (D&I) research and training capacity nationally, though little is known about what D&I research support and services CTSAs provide. To address this gap, the CTSA Dissemination, Implementation, and Knowledge Transfer Working Group conducted an environmental scan of CTSAs (2017–2018). Methods: Of 67 CTSA institutions, we contacted 43 that previously reported delivering D&I research services. D&I experts from these institutions were emailed a survey assessing D&I resources, services, training, and scientific projects. Responses were categorized and double-coded by study authors using a content analysis approach. Results: Thirty-five of the 43 D&I experts (81.4%) responded. Challenges to CTSAs in developing and supporting D&I science activities were related to inadequate D&I science workforce (45.7%) and lack of understanding of D&I science (25.7%). Services provided included consultation/mentoring programs (68%), pilot funding/grants (50%), and workshops/seminars/conferences (46%). Training and workforce development in D&I were frequently identified as future priorities. Recommendations included increase training to meet demand (68.6%), accessible D&I tools/resources (34.3%), greater visibility/awareness of D&I methods (34.3%), consultation services (22.9%), and expand D&I science workforce (22.9%). Conclusions: CTSAs have tremendous potential to support the advancement and impact of D&I science across the translational continuum. Despite the growing presence of D&I science in CTSAs, continued commitment and prioritization are needed from CTSA and institutional leadership to raise awareness of D&I science and its value, meet training demands, and develop necessary infrastructure for conducting D&I science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BeneFIT is a 4-year observational study of a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) program in 2 Medicaid/Medicare health plans in Oregon and Washington. In Health Plan Oregon's (HPO) collaborative model, HPO mails FITs that enrollees return to their clinics for processing. In Health Plan Washington's (HPW) centralized model, FITs are mailed directly to enrollees who return them to a centralized laboratory. This paper examines model-specific Year 1 development and implementation costs and estimates costs per screened enrollee. Staff completed activity-based costing spreadsheets. Non-labor costs were from study and external data. Data matched each plan's 2016 development and implementation dates. HPO development costs were $23.0K, primarily administration (eg, clinic recruitment). HPW development costs were $37.3K, 38.8% for FIT selection and mailing/tracking protocols. Year 1 implementation costs were $51.6K for HPO and $139.7K for HPW, reflecting HPW's greater outreach. Labor was 50.4% ($26.0K) of HPO's implementation costs, primarily enrollee eligibility and processing returned FITs, and was shared by HPO ($17.0K) and 6 participating clinics ($9.0K). Labor was 10.5% of HPW's implementation costs, primarily administration and enrollee eligibility. HPO's implementation costs per enrollee were 12.3% higher ($18.36) than for HPW ($16.34). Similar proportions of completed FITs among screening-eligibles produced a 15% lower cost per completed FIT in HPW ($89.75) vs. HPO ($105.79). Implementation costs for HPO only (without clinic costs) were $15.16/mailed introductory letter, $16.09/mailed FIT, and $87.35/completed FIT, comparable to HPW. Results highlight cost implications of different approaches to implementing a mailed FIT program in 2 Medicaid/Medicare health plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to recent guidelines, 46% of U.S. adults have high blood pressure (i.e., hypertension). Traditionally addressed in clinical settings, only 54% of adults successfully manage their hypertension. Community–clinical partnerships that facilitate medication adherence and lifestyle changes are promising avenues to achieve population-level blood pressure control. We examined partnerships for blood pressure control in Washington State, their facilitators and barriers, and ways public health departments could foster partnerships. We conducted 41 semistructured interviews with clinic staff, community-based organization (CBO) staff, pharmacy staff, and community health workers (CHWs). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–adapted Himmelman Collaboration Continuum, which describes five levels of partnership intensity, guided our thematic analysis. We found variation across sectors in partnership frequency and intensity. Clinic and pharmacy staff reported fewer partnerships than CBO staff and CHWs, and mostly either low or very high intensity partnerships. CBO staff and CHWs described partnerships at each intensity level. Trust and having a shared mission facilitated partnerships. Competition, lack of time, limited awareness of resources, and lack of shared health records constituted barriers to partnership. Bringing potential partners together to discuss shared goals, increasing technological integration, and building awareness of resources may help bridge clinical and community silos and improve population-level blood pressure control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Opioids are more commonly prescribed for chronic pain in rural settings in the USA, yet little is known about how the rural context influences efforts to improve opioid medication management. Methods: The Six Building Blocks is an evidence-based program that guides primary care practices in making system-based improvements in managing patients using long-term opioid therapy. It was implemented at 6 rural and rural-serving organizations with 20 clinic locations over a 15-month period. To gain further insight about their experience with implementing the program, interviews and focus groups were conducted with staff and clinicians at the six organizations at the end of the 15 months and transcribed. Team members used a template analysis approach, a form of qualitative thematic analysis, to code these data for barriers, facilitators, and corresponding subcodes. Results: Facilitators to making systems-based changes in opioid management within a rural practice context included a desire to help patients and their community, external pressures to make changes in opioid management, a desire to reduce workplace stress, external support for the clinic, supportive clinic leadership, and receptivity of patients. Barriers to making changes included competing demands on clinicians and staff, a culture of clinician autonomy, inadequate data systems, and a lack of patient resources in rural areas. Discussion: The barriers and facilitators identified here point to potentially unique determinants of practice that should be considered when addressing opioid prescribing for chronic pain in the rural setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The efficient and effective movement of research into practice is acknowledged as crucial to improving population health and assuring return on investment in healthcare research. The National Center for Advancing Translational Science which sponsors Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) recognizes that dissemination and implementation (D&I) sciences have matured over the last 15 years and are central to its goals to shift academic health institutions to better align with this reality. In 2016, the CTSA Collaboration and Engagement Domain Task Force chartered a D&I Science Workgroup to explore the role of D&I sciences across the translational research spectrum. This special communication discusses the conceptual distinctions and purposes of dissemination, implementation, and translational sciences. We propose an integrated framework and provide real-world examples for articulating the role of D&I sciences within and across all of the translational research spectrum. The framework's major proposition is that it situates D&I sciences as targeted "sub-sciences" of translational science to be used by CTSAs, and others, to identify and investigate coherent strategies for more routinely and proactively accelerating research translation. The framework highlights the importance of D&I thought leaders in extending D&I principles to all research stages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]