Search

BackgroundAdults over age 40 are increasing their use of email and social media, raising interest in use of peer-to-peer Internet-based messaging to promote cancer screening. ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to assess current practices and attitudes toward use of email and other e-communication for peer-to-peer dialogues on cancer screening. MethodsWe conducted in-person interviews with 438 insured adults ages 42-73 in Georgia, Hawaii, and Massachusetts. Participants reported on use of email and other e-communication including social media to discuss with peers routine health topics including breast and colorectal cancer (CRC). We ascertained willingness to share personal CRC screening experiences via conversation, postcard, email, or other e-communication. Health literacy scores were measured. ResultsEmail had been used by one-third (33.8%, 148/438) to discuss routine health topics, by 14.6% (64/438) to discuss breast cancer screening, and by 12.6% (55/438) to discuss CRC screening. Other e-communication was used to discuss routine health topics (11.6%, 51/438), screening for breast cancer (3.9%, 17/438), and CRC (2.3%, 10/438). In the preceding week, 84.5% (370/438) of participants had used email, 55.9% (245/438) had used e-communication of some type; 44.3% (194/438) text, 32.9% (144/438) Facebook, 12.3% (54/438) instant message, 7.1% (31/438) video chat, and 4.8% (21/438) Twitter. Many participants were willing to share their CRC screening experiences via email (32.4%, 142/438 might be willing; 36.3%, 159/438 very willing) and via other e-communication (15.8%, 69/438 might be willing; 14.4%, 63/438 very willing). Individuals willing to send CRC screening emails scored significantly higher on tests of health literacy compared to those willing to send only postcards (P

Background: The uptake, adoption and integration of new medicines and treatment regimens within healthcare delivery can take a decade or more. Increasingly, implementation science (IS) research is being used to bridge this gap between the availability of new therapeutic evidence and its actual application in clinical practice. Little is known, however, about the quality of IS research in this area, including the degree to which theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) are being used. The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the use of TMFs in implementation research involving medicinal products. Methods: A search was conducted for English language abstracts and manuscripts describing the application of TMFs in IS studies for medicinal products. Eligible publications were those published between 1 January 1974 and 12 December 2022. All records were screened at the title and abstract stage; included full-text papers were abstracted using data extraction tables designed for the study. Study quality was appraised using the Implementation Research Development Tool. Results: The initial scoping search identified 2697 publications, of which 9 were ultimately eligible for inclusion in the review. Most studies were published after 2020 and varied in their objectives, design and therapeutic area. Most studies had sample sizes of fewer than 50 participants, and all focused on the post-marketing phase of drug development. The TMF most frequently used was the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Although most studies applied all TMF domains, TMF use was limited to instrument development and/or qualitative analysis. Quality appraisals indicated the need for engaging patients and other stakeholders in the implementation research, reporting on the cost of implementation strategies, and evaluating the unintended consequences of implementation efforts. Conclusions: We found that few IS studies involving medicinal products reported using TMFs. Those that did encompassed a wide variety of therapeutic indications and medicinal products; all were in the post-marketing phase and involved limited application of the TMFs. Researchers should consider conducting IS in earlier phases of drug development and integrating the TMFs throughout the research process. More consistent and in-depth use of TMFs may help advance research in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) was developed in 2008 as a contextually expanded version of the broadly used Reach, Adoption, Effectiveness, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. PRISM provides researchers a pragmatic and intuitive model to improve translation of research interventions into clinical and community practice. Since 2008, the use of PRISM increased across diverse topics, populations, and settings. This citation analysis and scoping systematic review aimed to assess the use of the PRISM framework and to make recommendations for future research.Methods: A literature search was conducted using three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus) for the period of 2008 and September 2020. After exclusion, reverse citation searches and invitations to experts in the field were used to identify and obtain recommendations for additional articles not identified in the original search. Studies that integrated PRISM into their study design were selected for full abstraction. Unique research studies were abstracted for information on study characteristics (e.g., setting/population, design), PRISM contextual domains, and RE-AIM outcomes.Results: A total of 180 articles were identified to include PRISM to some degree. Thirty-two articles representing 23 unique studies integrated PRISM within their study design. Study characteristics varied widely and included studies conducted in diverse contexts, but predominately in high-income countries and in clinical out-patient settings. With regards to use, 19 used PRISM for evaluation, 10 for planning/development, 10 for implementation, four for sustainment, and one for dissemination. There was substantial variation across studies in how and to what degree PRISM contextual domains and RE-AIM outcomes were operationalized and connected. Only two studies directly connected individual PRISM context domains with RE-AIM outcomes, and another four included RE-AIM outcomes without direct connection to PRISM domains.Conclusions: This is the first systematic review of the use of PRISM in various contexts. While there were low levels of 'integrated' use of PRISM and few reports on linkage to RE-AIM outcomes, most studies included important context domains of implementation and sustainability infrastructure and external environment. Recommendations are provided for more consistent and comprehensive use of and reporting on PRISM to inform both research and practice on contextual factors in implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.05.039 Byline: Russell E. Glasgow (a), Bridget Gaglio (a), Eric K. France (a), Al Marcus (b), Kimberly M. Riley (c), Arnold Levinson (a)(b)(c), Kimberly Bischoff (a) Keywords: Harm reduction; Smoking cessation; Patient participation; Smoking reduction; Recruitment; Generalization Abstract: There is a need for innovative approaches capable of reaching smokers who would not otherwise participate in efforts to modify their smoking. This paper reports on two studies to determine whether a smoking reduction intervention would appeal to additional or different types of smokers than do cessation interventions. Study 1 attempted to contact 160 HMO smokers scheduled for outpatient surgeries. In Study 2, actual pilot reduction and cessation programs were offered to 531 smokers about to undergo out-patient surgeries or procedures. In Study 1, 39% of those eligible elected smoking reduction; and 38% selected cessation. In Study 2 of those eligible, 22% began participation in the smoking reduction program; 12% preferred a cessation approach; and 65% declined. There were few demographic or smoking history differences among those who elected smoking reduction, cessation, or declined. Among this understudied population, a sizable proportion in both studies agreed to participate in smoking reduction. If replicated, this suggests that comprehensive programs that include a smoking reduction component could substantially increase their reach. Author Affiliation: (a) Kaiser Permanente Colorado, P.O. Box 378066, Aurora, CO 80237-8066, United States (b) AMC Cancer Research Center, United States (c) University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO, United States

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and effectiveness of behavioral goal choices in the self-management of diabetes and to test goal-setting theory hypotheses that self-selection [...]

Introduction: Understanding, categorizing, and using implementation science theories, models, and frameworks is a complex undertaking. The issues involved are even more challenging given the large number of frameworks and that some of them evolve significantly over time. As a consequence, researchers and practitioners may be unintentionally mischaracterizing frameworks or basing actions and conclusions on outdated versions of a framework. Methods: This paper addresses how the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework has been described, summarizes how the model has evolved over time, and identifies and corrects several misconceptions. Results: We address 13 specific areas where misconceptions have been noted concerning the use of RE-AIM and summarize current guidance on these issues. We also discuss key changes to RE-AIM over the past 20 years, including the evolution to Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model, and provide resources for potential users to guide application of the framework. Conclusions: RE-AIM and many other theories and frameworks have evolved, been misunderstood, and sometimes been misapplied. To some degree, this is inevitable, but we conclude by suggesting some actions that reviewers, framework developers, and those selecting or applying frameworks can do to prevent or alleviate these problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Palliative care is a growing specialty that addresses the needs of individuals diagnosed with advanced illness and their caregivers. Although palliative care has been shown to improve a variety of patient- and caregiver-centered outcomes, access to comprehensive palliative care services for patients is often limited. There is a need to identify the most effective approaches to delivering palliative care to patients in community settings. In fiscal year 2017, based on extensive input from a diverse set of stakeholders, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded nine multisite comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) trials focused on community-based delivery of palliative care for a total investment of $80 million. These studies, focusing on advance care planning and models of palliative care delivery, represent some of the largest most complex palliative care trials funded to date. Each study evaluates both patient and caregiver outcomes, and together, these trials include a broad range of health conditions, interventions, and settings of care. PCORI has also fostered a learning network of the funded awardees to facilitate the successful conduct of these CER studies and to support awardee efforts to develop collaborative products relevant to advancing the field of palliative care research and practice. The protocols of each of the nine trials, detailed in this issue, demonstrate the expansive reach of the investment PCORI has made in an effort to further the research agenda and provide substantive research evidence in stakeholder-identified areas of need in the field of palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Patient question‐asking is essential to shared decision making. We sought to describe patients' questions when faced with cancer prevention and screening decisions, and to explore differences in question‐asking as a function of health literacy with respect to spoken information (health literacy–listening). Methods: Four‐hundred and thirty‐three (433) adults listened to simulated physician–patient interactions discussing (i) prophylactic tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention, (ii) PSA testing for prostate cancer and (iii) colorectal cancer screening, and identified questions they would have. Health literacy–listening was assessed using the Cancer Message Literacy Test‐Listening (CMLT‐Listening). Two authors developed a coding scheme, which was applied to all questions. Analyses examined whether participants scoring above or below the median on the CMLT‐Listening asked a similar variety of questions. Results: Questions were coded into six major function categories: risks/benefits, procedure details, personalizing information, additional information, decision making and credibility. Participants who scored higher on the CMLT‐Listening asked a greater variety of risks/benefits questions; those who scored lower asked a greater variety of questions seeking to personalize information. This difference persisted after adjusting for education. Conclusion: Patients' health literacy–listening is associated with distinctive patterns of question utilization following cancer screening and prevention counselling. Providers should not only be responsive to the question functions the patient favours, but also seek to ensure that the patient is exposed to the full range of information needed for shared decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was developed to determine potential public health impact of interventions (i.e., programs, policy, and practice). The purpose of this systematic review was to determine (1) comparative results across accurately reported RE-AIM indicators, (2) relevant information when there remains under-reporting or misclassification of data across each dimension, (3) the degree to which authors intervened to improve outcomes related to each dimension, and (4) the number of articles reporting RE-AIM dimensions for a given study. Methods: In April 2013, a systematic search of the RE-AIM framework was completed in PubMed, PSYCHInfo, EbscoHost, Web of Science, and Scopus. Evidence was analyzed until January 2015. Results: Eighty-two interventions that included empirical data related to at least one of the RE-AIM dimensions were included in the review. Across these interventions, they reached a median sample size of 320 participants (M = 4894 ± 28,256). Summarizing the effectiveness indicators, we found that: the average participation rate was 45 % (±28 %), 89 % of the interventions reported positive changes in the primary outcome and 11 interventions reported broader outcomes (e.g., quality of life). As for individual-level maintenance, 11 % of studies showed effects ≥6 months post-program. Average setting and staff adoption rates were 75 % (±32 %) and 79 % (±28 %), respectively. Interventions reported being delivered as intended (82 % (±16 %)) and 22 % intervention reported adaptations to delivery. There were insufficient data to determine average maintenance at the organizational level. Data on costs associated with each dimension were infrequent and disparate: four studies reported costs of recruitment, two reported intervention costs per participant, and two reported adoption costs. Conclusions: The RE-AIM framework has been employed in a variety of populations and settings for the planning, delivery, and evaluation of behavioral interventions. This review highlights inconsistencies in the degree to which authors reported each dimension in its entirety as well as inaccuracies in reporting indicators within each dimension. Further, there are few interventions that aim to improve outcomes related to reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework has been widely used for translational research. We used social network analysis (SNA) to explore how innovative research frameworks, such as RE-AIM, have diffused over time in academic literature. A structured literature review was conducted on RE-AIM between 1999 and 2012. SNA indices of degree score, betweenness, centrality, and authorship ties were used to examine use of RE-AIM. Use of RE-AIM has grown since its inception and spread from a few research centers to use internationally. Investigation of co-authorship revealed many have published on RE-AIM, but a much smaller core of RE-AIM researchers have published together two or more times. SNA revealed how the RE-AIM framework has been used over time and identified areas to further expand use of the framework. SNA can be useful to understand how research frameworks diffuse over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective techniques to encourage colorectal cancer screening in underscreened populations have included social support interventions and e-mail reminders from physicians. Personalized e-mail messages to promote colorectal cancer screening within social networks could be even more effective but have not been studied. The authors interviewed 387 e-mail users, aged 42–73 years in Georgia, Hawaii, and Massachusetts. Participants were asked to edit a sample message in which the sender shares a recent colonoscopy experience and urges the recipient to discuss colorectal cancer screening with a doctor. For those reporting willingness to send this message, changes to the message and suggested subject lines were recorded. Edited text was analyzed for content and concordance with original message. The majority of participants (74.4%) were willing to e-mail a modifiable message. Of those willing, 63.5% edited the message. Common edits included deletion (17.7%) or modification (17.4%) of a negatively framed sentence on colon cancer risks and addition or modification of personalizing words (15.6%). Few edits changed the meaning of the message (5.6%), and even fewer introduced factual inaccuracies (1.7%). Modifiable e-mail messages offer a way for screened individuals to promote colorectal cancer screening to social network members. The accuracy and effects of such messages should be further studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The need for high-quality evidence that is applicable in real-world, routine settings continues to increase. Pragmatic trials are designed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in real-world settings, whereas explanatory trials aim to test whether an intervention works under optimal situations. There is a continuum between explanatory and pragmatic trials. Most trials have aspects of both, making it challenging to label and categorize a trial and to evaluate its potential for translation into practice. Methods We summarize our experience applying the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) combined with external validity items based on the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to three studies to provide a more robust and comprehensive assessment of trial characteristics related to translation of research. We summarize lessons learned using domains from the combined frameworks for use in study planning, evaluating specific studies, and reviewing the literature and make recommendations for future use. Results A variety of coders can be trained to use the PRECIS and RE-AIM domains. These domains can also be used for diverse purposes, content areas, and study types, but are not without challenges. Both PRECIS and RE-AIM domains required modification in two of the three studies to evaluate and rate domains specific to study type. Lessons learned involved: dedicating enough time for training activities related to the domains; use of reviewers with a range of familiarity with specific study protocols; how to best adapt ratings that reflect complex study designs; and differences of opinion regarding the value of creating a composite score for these criteria. Conclusions Combining both frameworks can specifically help identify where and how a study is and is not pragmatic. Using both PRECIS and RE-AIM allows for standard reporting of key study characteristics related to pragmatism and translation. Such measures should be used more consistently to help plan more pragmatic studies, evaluate progress, increase transparency of reporting, and integrate literature to facilitate translation of research into practice and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a recent surge of eHealth programs in cancer and other content areas, but few reviews have focused on the methodologies and designs employed in these studies. We conducted a systematic review of studies on eHealth interventions on cancer prevention and control published between 2001 and 2010 applying the Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) criteria and external validity components from the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. We identified 113 studies that focused on cancer prevention and control of eHealth interventions. Most studies fell midway along the explanatory/pragmatic trial continuum, but few reported on various practical feasibility criteria for translation. Despite vast interest in cancer eHealth and the applied nature of this field, few studies considered key external validity issues. There is a need for use of alternative pragmatic study designs and transparent reporting of external validity components to produce more rapid and generalizable results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using a multidimensional assessment of health literacy (the Cancer Message Literacy Test-Listening, the Cancer Message Literacy Test-Reading, and the Lipkus Numeracy Scale), the authors assessed a stratified random sample of 1013 insured adults (40–70 years of age). The authors explored whether low health literacy across all 3 domains (n =111) was associated with sets of variables likely to affect engagement in cancer prevention and screening activities: (a) attitudes and behaviors relating to health care encounters and providers, (b) attitudes toward cancer and health, (c) knowledge of cancer screening tests, and (d) attitudes toward health related media and actual media use. Adults with low health literacy were more likely to report avoiding doctor's visits, to have more fatalistic attitudes toward cancer, to be less accurate in identifying the purpose of cancer screening tests, and more likely to avoid information about diseases they did not have. Compared with other participants, those with lower health literacy were more likely to say that they would seek information about cancer prevention or screening from a health care professional and less likely to turn to the Internet first for such information. Those with lower health literacy reported reading on fewer days and using the computer on fewer days than did other participants. The authors assessed the association of low health literacy with colorectal cancer screening in an age-appropriate subgroup for which colorectal cancer screening is recommended. In these insured subjects receiving care in integrated health care delivery systems, those with low health literacy were less likely to be up to date on screening for colorectal cancer, but the difference was not statistically significant. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses a study which aimed to review cancer prognostic tools that are available online and developed to guide patient-physician communication and decision-making. Topics covered include a description of their content and format, the primary focus of the tools, and the implications for their use for different purposes by cancer care providers.

Purpose: Patient-centered communication is critical to quality cancer care. Effective communication can help patients and family members cope with cancer, make informed decisions, and effectively manage their care; suboptimal communication can contribute to care breakdowns and undermine clinician-patient relationships. The study purpose was to explore stakeholders' views on the feasibility and acceptability of collecting self-reported patient and family perceptions of communication experiences while receiving cancer care. The results were intended to inform the design, development, and implementation of a structured and generalizable patient-level reporting system. Methods: This was a formative, qualitative study that used semistructured interviews with cancer patients, family members, clinicians, and leaders of health care organizations. The constant comparative method was used to identify major themes in the interview transcripts. Results: A total of 106 stakeholders were interviewed. Thematic saturation was achieved. All stakeholders recognized the importance of communication and endorsed efforts to improve communication during cancer care. Patients, clinicians, and leaders expressed concerns about the potential consequences of reports of suboptimal communication experiences, such as damage to the clinician-patient relationship, and the need for effective improvement strategies. Patients and family members would report good communication experiences in order to encourage such practices. Practical and logistic issues were identified. Conclusion: Patient reports of their communication experiences during cancer care could increase understanding of the communication process, stimulate improvements, inform interventions, and provide a basis for evaluating changes in communication practices. This qualitative study provides a foundation for the design and pilot testing of such a patient reporting system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the importance of health literacy in patient-centered outcomes research. It comments on the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Center which was created by the U.S. Congress in 2010 to finance research for comparative clinical effectiveness in assisting patients and health care stakeholders in informed health decision making. It talks about plans to release research results from the research center which would be accessible to the public, clinicians, and patients.

Conducting research in a primary care setting is difficult because of the competing demands primary care offices have to manage in the current medical environment. Every primary care office has its own relationship and reporting structures, norms, and ways of conducting day-to-day affairs. Regardless of the setting, when carrying out qualitative and/or mixed methods research, researchers must have rapport with the individuals or group of individuals they will be working with to carry out the research. In this article, the authors describe the different approaches that research staff have used to create rapport with practice staff that were not only participants in the study but were also responsible for the delivery and implementation of this effectiveness study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: To examine the psychometric properties of two new health literacy tests, and to evaluate score validity. Methods: Adults aged 40–71 completed the Cancer Message Literacy Test-Listening (CMLT-Listening), the Cancer Message Literacy Test-Reading (CMLT-Reading), the REALM, the Lipkus numeracy test, a brief knowledge test (developed for this study) and five brief cognitive tests. Participants also self-reported educational achievement, current health, reading ability, ability to understand spoken information, and language spoken at home. Results: Score reliabilities were good (CMLT-Listening: alpha=.84) to adequate (CMLT-Reading: alpha=.75). Scores on both CMLT tests were positively and significantly correlated with scores on the REALM, numeracy, cancer knowledge and the cognitive tests. Mean CMLT scores varied as predicted according to educational level, language spoken at home, self-rated health, self-reported reading, and self-rated ability to comprehend spoken information. Conclusion: The psychometric findings for both tests are promising. Scores appear to be valid indicators of comprehension of spoken and written health messages about cancer prevention and screening. Practice implications: The CMLT-Listening will facilitate research into comprehension of spoken health messages, and together with the CMLT-Reading will allow researchers to examine the unique contributions of listening and reading comprehension to health-related decisions and behaviors. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Objectives: Ability to understand spoken health information is an important facet of health literacy, but to date, no instrument has been available to quantify patients’ ability in this area. We sought to develop a test to assess comprehension of spoken health messages related to cancer prevention and screening to fill this gap, and a complementary test of comprehension of written health messages. Methods: We used the Sentence Verification Technique to write items based on realistic health messages about cancer prevention and screening, including media messages, clinical encounters and clinical print materials. Items were reviewed, revised, and pre-tested. Adults aged 40–70 participated in a pilot administration in Georgia, Hawaii, and Massachusetts. Results: The Cancer Message Literacy Test-Listening is self-administered via touchscreen laptop computer. No reading is required. It takes approximately 1 hour. The Cancer Message Literacy Test-Reading is self-administered on paper. It takes approximately 10min. Conclusions: These two new tests will allow researchers to assess comprehension of spoken health messages, to examine the relationship between listening and reading literacy, and to explore the impact of each form of literacy on health-related outcomes. Practice implications: Researchers and clinicians now have a means of measuring comprehension of spoken health information. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]