Search

Implementation strategies are methods or techniques used to adopt, implement, and sustain evidence-based practices (EBPs). Implementation strategies are dynamic and may require adaptation to fit implementation contexts, especially in low-resource settings, which are most likely to serve racially and ethnically diverse patients. The framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based implementation strategies (FRAME-IS) was used to document adaptations to implementation strategies to inform an optimization pilot of Access to Tailored Autism Integrated Care (ATTAIN; an integrated care model for children with autism and co-occurring mental health needs) in a federally qualified health center (FQHC) near the United States/Mexico border. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from 36 primary care providers who participated in the initial ATTAIN feasibility pilot to inform adaptations. Adaptations were mapped to the FRAME-IS through an iterative template analysis to inform an optimization pilot at a FQHC 1-year from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Four implementation strategies (training and workflow reminders, provider/clinic champions, periodic reflections, and technical assistance) were employed during the feasibility pilot and were adapted for the optimization pilot to fit the needs of the FQHC and service delivery changes prompted by the pandemic. Findings demonstrate the utility of using the FRAME-IS to systematically inform EBP optimization in a FQHC providing care to underserved communities. Findings will inform future research studies implementing integrated mental health models in low-resourced primary care settings. Implementation outcomes and provider perceptions of ATTAIN at the FQHC are also reported. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Introduction: This study explored the impact of health care (HC) bias and discrimination on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) parents and their children with disabilities in the United States, including the timing of developmental screening and diagnosis., Method: We conducted semistructured interviews with 16 LGBTQ parents of children with developmental concerns or disabilities recruited through a prior national survey. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a combined inductive and deductive approach., Results: Discrimination types reported included noninclusive forms, disclosure challenges, and providers dismissing nongestational parents and diverse families. Few parents reported screening and diagnosis delays. Parents' recommendations included: avoiding assumptions, honoring family diversity, increasing LGBTQ family support, improving HC forms, increasing antibias training, and convening a learning community., Discussion: Our study advances the knowledge around HC bias and discrimination among LGBTQ parents of children with disabilities. Findings highlight the need for increased LGBTQ-affirming family support and research representing LGBTQ family diversity in U.S. health care., (Copyright © 2022 National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Nearly half of children meeting criteria for a mental health disorder in the United States (U.S.) do not receive the treatment they need. Unfortunately, lack of access to and engagement in mental health services can be seen at even higher rates for historically marginalized groups, including low-income, racial, and ethnic minority youth. Lay Health Workers (LHWs) represent a valuable workforce that has been identified as a promising solution to address mental health disparities. LHWs are individuals without formal mental health training who oftentimes share lived experiences with the communities that they serve. A growing body of research has supported the mobilization of LHWs to address service disparities around the globe; however, challenges persist in how to scale-up and sustain LHW models of care, with specific barriers in the U.S. In this paper, we describe LHWs' different roles and involvement in the mental health field as well as the current state of the literature around LHW implementation. We integrate the RE-AIM Framework with a conceptual model of how LHWs address disparities to outline future directions in research and practice to enhance equity in the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of LHW models of care and evidence-based practices for historically marginalized communities within the U.S.

In 2016, the US Preventive Services Task Force concluded that there was "insufficient" ("I" statement) evidence to support universal primary care screening for autism spectrum disorder. The statement led to controversy among research and clinical communities. Although a number of papers have since been published arguing for the potential benefit of autism spectrum disorder screening, none adequately address the potential harms of autism spectrum disorder screening. This evidence gap may relate to confusion regarding how the US Preventive Services Task Force conceptualizes and evaluates potential harm. In this commentary, we explore how the US Preventive Services Task Force operationalizes harm and discuss how the potential for harm was described in the "I" statement on autism spectrum disorder screening. This information can serve as a guide for investigators working to study the benefits and harms of autism spectrum disorder screening in order to fill the research gaps cited by the US Preventive Services Task Force report. Finally, we recommend future research directions for exploring harms of autism spectrum disorder screening, filling cited research gaps, and ultimately ensuring that the benefits of autism spectrum disorder screening truly outweigh the harms for all children and their families.

Objective: To describe racial differences in use of specialty care among children with autism spectrum disorder., Methods: We identified patients ages 2 to 21 years with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code of autism (299.0) seen from 2000 to 2011 at a major academic health center by using a research patient data repository and determined rates of specialty provider visits and procedures by race. We then used logistic regression to determine the associations of rates of subspecialty visits and procedures with race and ethnicity, controlling for gender, age, and payer type., Results: We identified 3615 patients (2935 white, 243 Hispanic, 188 African American, and 249 other). The most striking differences were in use of gastroenterology (GI)/nutrition services. Nonwhite children were less likely to use GI/nutrition specialty providers (African American, odds ratio = 0.32 [95th percentile confidence interval: 0.18-0.55]; Hispanic, 0.32 [0.20-0.51]; other, 0.56 [0.34-0.92]) as well as neurology (African American, 0.52 [0.33-0.83]; Hispanic, 0.40 [0.27-0.59]) and psychiatry/psychology (African American, 0.44 [0.27-0.72]; Hispanic, 0.60 [0.41-0.88]; other, 0.62 [0.38-0.99]). Nonwhite children were less likely to have had GI studies: colonoscopy (African American, 0.23 [0.10-0.53]; Hispanic, 0.26 [0.14-0.50]), endoscopy (African American, 0.31 [0.16-0.58]; Hispanic, 0.27 [0.16-0.46]; other, 0.53 [0.31-0.90]), and stool studies (African American, 0.49 [0.30-0.91]). Hispanic children had lower rates of neurologic and other testing: EEG (Hispanic, 0.53 [0.35-0.78]), brain MRI (African American, 0.37 [0.22-0.63]; Hispanic, 0.62 [0.42-0.90]), sleep study (Hispanic, 0.18 [0.04-0.76]), and neuropsychiatric testing (Hispanic, 0.55 [0.32-0.96])., Conclusions: We found racial and ethnic differences among children diagnosed with autism in use of care and procedures. Possible explanations for these findings include differences in presentation, referral rates, or referral follow through.

Net overexpression or derangements of PTK-encoding oncogenes and ras serve as critical driving forces in the evolution of many epithelial and lymphohematopoietic cancers. The ability to impede signal transduction through ras-based pathways could provide a powerful molecular target for therapy and prevention of a broad spectrum of malignant neoplasms.

In summary, analysis of the P01 program indicates that differences exist in scores and funding requirements between purely basic and translational P01s; P01 funding has been stable and the P01 policies consistent; growth in average costs for P01s has lagged compared to R01s; P01 grantees have a higher success rate than R01 grantees; priority score compression reduces the P01 payline without reducing the number of grants funded; exception funding in P01s expands the number of grants awarded and helps to meet the scientific program needs of the NCI; almost all R01 and P01 applications in the first quartile are funded; comparably ranked R01s and P01s are funded at equivalent percentages of recommended funding levels; the percentage of approved funds awarded declines as scores for R01s and P01s become less favorable. Because the resources available are finite, the NCI carefully considers the competing demands for RPG funds. On balance, however, the P01 program is still in good health. In combination with the other methods we use to make RPG awards, the P01 program is a vital component of our research grant program. Faced with budget realities, however, some difficult decisions have to be made. The NCI is open to suggestions on how to distribute research funds to best promote cancer research throughout the country. The NCI is particularly interested in hearing researchers' perceptions of problems so that, whenever it is appropriate, we can modify our course. There are important questions to consider for the future. Should there be greater or lesser use of RFAs in allocating resources for P01 grants? What algorithm optimally distributes resources among R01s, P01s, and other funding instruments in the RPGs? Should exceptions be used more or less heavily in the P01 funding process? Should other grant programs outside the RPG budget, such as the P50 SPORE program, be used to relieve pressures on the P01 budget? Should the number of projects within P01s be limited? How can peer review groups be given opportunities to provide priority scores that better reflect distinguishable differences in highly meritorious P01s? Should P01 scores be normalized? How could the R01 percentile concept be applied to P01s? How can the results from standing study sections be synchronized with results from ad hoc review groups? What changes in peer review procedures would promote equitable score distributions and budget recommendations across years? How can the NCI provide stability for established P01s without impinging on the ability of new P01s to enter the system?(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Advances in antiretroviral therapy and treatment or prophylaxis against opportunistic infection have resulted in prolongation of the survival of patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Previous research has demonstrated an association between AIDS and risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). In addition to the approximately 3% of individuals found to have NHL at the time of AIDS onset, others continue to develop NHL following AIDS diagnosis. Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute demonstrated a sharply increasing incidence of NHL among men in the age range 20-49 years since 1983 in the United States. Based on new data on the risk of NHL following AIDS diagnosis, on estimates of improved survival following AIDS diagnosis, and on projections of future AIDS incidence, we considered four sets of assumptions and estimated the number of AIDS-related NHL cases in 1992 to be between 2900 and 9800. Three of these projections were higher than the estimate of 4700 cases obtained by linear extrapolation of SEER incidence trends. These projections of AIDS-related NHL incidence suggest that between 8% and 27% of all NHL cases that occur in the United States in 1992 will arise as a consequence of infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), imposing a substantial health care burden. More research into the pathogenesis of lymphoma and new approaches to antiretroviral and antilymphoma therapy will be necessary to prevent and treat this formidable complication of infection with HIV.

The three foundations of the National Cancer Program are basic research, clinical trials (in prevention and treatment), and cancer centers. These foundations have supported a great deal of progress against cancer over the past 20 years. Nevertheless, a number of challenges remain, and continued progress will depend on the speed with which research advances can be translated into practical realities. Poverty is a risk factor for cancer incidence and mortality. Thus, a lack of access to the technologies generated by the National Cancer Program can be a force for bringing about differential burdens of cancer in underserved populations.

The incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) has increased by over 50% in the United States since 1973. There is epidemiologic evidence that some of this increase is the result of AIDS-related lymphoma and that this component is increasing. Prolonged survival in the setting of a variety of immunodeficiency states is associated with an increased incidence of NHL. The development of antiretroviral therapy and improved therapy for the complications of AIDS has resulted in prolonged survival of patients with AIDS. As these patients survive longer with profound immunodeficiency, they have an increased cumulative risk of developing NHL. This may result in even more AIDS-related NHL in the future than predicted from current epidemiological studies. An increased understanding of the pathogenesis of AIDS-related NHL may lead to means of preventing their occurrence. Also, therapies that may prevent immunodeficiency from developing in HIV-infected patients may reduce the likelihood of NHL developing. Current efforts at treating these lymphomas are aimed at preventing the myelosuppression and immunosuppression associated with current regimens, lymphoma relapses within the central nervous system, and the opportunistic infections associated with treatment of these tumors. Ultimately, the best means of preventing the development of these lymphomas is by preventing infection with HIV.

The discovery of effective therapies for HIV requires a fundamental knowledge of retroviral infections. Research by the Public Health Service and collaborating organizations on oncogenic viruses, including retroviruses, has provided much of the basic understanding of retroviruses in general and anti-retroviral therapeutic strategies in particular. Early work by the Viral Cancer and Developmental Therapeutic Programs of the National Cancer Institute and the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has contributed much of the current understanding of AIDS and its therapy. This paper describes the progress that has been made in the treatment of AIDS and the programs that have been created to develop future therapies. These programs include efforts to screen existing compounds for activity against HIV, to design new anti-HIV therapies, and to test potential agents in controlled clinical trials. As a result of these activities, researchers have identified one drug, AZT, that has proven effective in prolonging the lives of some patients with AIDS, and are developing several other promising compounds. The key question no longer is whether HIV infection can be treated, but what is the best and fastest way to develop new therapies and improve existing ones.