Search

The modeling and experimentation of a pneumatic actuation system for the development of a soft robotic therapeutic glove is proposed in this article for the prevention of finger deformities in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. The Rehabilitative Arthritis Glove (RA-Glove) is a soft robotic glove fitted with two internal inflatable actuators for lateral compression and massage of the fingers and their joints. Two mechanical models to predict the indentation and bending characteristics of the inflatable actuators based on their geometrical parameters will be presented and validated with experimental results. Experimental validation shows that the model was within a standard deviation of the experimental mean for input pressure range of 0 to 2 bars. Evaluation of the RA-Glove was also performed on six healthy human subjects. The stress distribution along the fingers of the subjects using the RA-Glove was also shown to be even and specific to the finger sizes. This article demonstrates the modeling of soft pneumatic actuators and highlights the potential of the RA-Glove as a therapeutic device for the prevention of arthritic deformities of the fingers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Serious mental illness (SMI) affects 4.6% of the American population. While treatments are available, adherence to specific regimens is often suboptimal. Multiple organizations, such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), have called for more options that improve accessibility and engagement to treatment among individuals with SMI. This study protocol answers such calls by testing the effectiveness of peer specialists—individuals with SMI trained to use their experience to help others with SMI—in delivering social skills training (SST) and cognitive behavioral social skills training (CBSST), evidence-based treatments effective at engaging individuals with SMI to make behavioral and cognitive changes. Peer specialists have been shown to be adept at engaging those with SMI in treatment; however, their ability to deliver these structured treatments is unknown. Methods This study is a randomized, hybrid 1, research assistant-blinded, superiority trial. A total of 252 veterans with SMI will be recruited and randomized to one of three arms: CBSST-Peer vs. SST-Peer vs. treatment as usual. Participants randomized to CBSST-Peer or SST-Peer will participate in a 20-week group-based intervention that meets weekly for a 60-min class. All participants will complete 4 study assessments at baseline, 10 weeks, 20 weeks, and 32 weeks. A multidimensional battery of functional outcomes will be used with the Independent Living Skills Survey (ILSS) as the primary outcome measure. Post-study completion, veterans who participated in the CBSST-Peer or SST-Peer arms will randomly be invited to participate in focus groups, and peer specialists will complete interviews to further assess the effectiveness of each intervention. Discussion Improving care and outcomes for individuals with SMI is a national priority. To improve care, it is imperative to think about new ways to improve engagement and accessibility to care. This study provides an innovative solution to this problem by evaluating how two different types of treatment, delivered by peer specialists, compare to usual care. The results of the study will allow for the expansion of treatment options that improve access and engagement among veterans with SMI.

Abstract Background Alcohol use is a significant risk factor for disability and death in U.S. adults, and approximately one out of every six Veterans seen in primary care (PC) report unhealthy alcohol use. Unhealthy alcohol use is associated with increased risk for poor medical outcomes, substantial societal costs, and death, including suicide. Based on substantial evidence from randomized controlled trials and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, VA/DoD clinical guidelines stipulate that all Veterans screening positive for unhealthy alcohol use should receive evidence-based alcohol care in PC, including brief counseling interventions (BI) and additional treatment (e.g., pharmacotherapy) for those with alcohol use disorders (AUD). The VA pioneered implementing alcohol screening and BI in PC, yet substantial implementation gaps remain. To improve alcohol-related care, this study will conduct a pilot study to assess whether a multi-faceted evidence-based implementation strategy—practice facilitation—has the potential to improve PC-based alcohol-related care at a single VA clinic. Methods We will first recruit and conduct qualitative interviews with Veterans with unhealthy alcohol use (n = 20–25) and PC stakeholders (N = 10–15) to understand barriers and facilitators to high-quality alcohol care and use results to refine and hone the multifaceted practice facilitation intervention. Qualitative interviews, analysis, and refinement of the intervention will be guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Focus groups with a small sample of PC providers and staff (n = 5–7) will be used to further refine the practice facilitation intervention and assess its acceptability and feasibility. The refined practice facilitation intervention will then be offered in the PC clinic to assess implementation (e.g., reach) and effectiveness (reduced drinking) outcomes based on the RE-AIM framework. Discussion This research directly addresses one of the largest public health crises of our time, as alcohol kills more people than opioids and is associated with increased risk of suicide. If successful, this pilot may generate an intervention with far-reaching effects on adverse outcomes experienced by Veterans with unhealthy alcohol use, including increased access to care and suicide prevention. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04565899; Date of registration: 9/25/2020

BackgroundMental health care disparities are persistent and have increased in recent years. Compared with their White counterparts, members of racially and ethnically minoritized groups have less access to mental health care. Minoritized groups also have lower engagement in mental health treatment and are more likely to experience ineffective patient-provider communication, which contribute to negative mental health care experiences and poor mental health outcomes. Interventions that embrace recovery-oriented practices to support patient engagement and empower patients to participate in their mental health care and treatment decisions may help reduce mental health care disparities. Designed to achieve this goal, the Proactive, Recovery-Oriented Treatment Navigation to Engage Racially Diverse Veterans in Mental Healthcare (PARTNER-MH) is a peer-led patient navigation intervention that aims to engage minoritized patients in mental health treatment, support them to play a greater role in their care, and facilitate their participation in shared treatment decision-making. ObjectiveThe primary aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of PARTNER-MH delivered to patients over 6 months. The second aim is to evaluate the preliminary effects of PARTNER-MH on patient activation, patient engagement, and shared decision-making. The third aim is to examine patient-perceived barriers to and facilitators of engagement in PARTNER-MH as well as contextual factors that may inhibit or promote the integration, sustainability, and scalability of PARTNER-MH using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. MethodsThis pilot study evaluates the feasibility and acceptability of PARTNER-MH in a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) mental health setting using a mixed methods, randomized controlled trial study design. PARTNER-MH is tested under real-world conditions using certified VHA peer specialists (peers) selected through usual VHA hiring practices and assigned to the mental health service line. Peers provide PARTNER-MH and usual peer support services. The study compares the impact of PARTNER-MH versus a wait-list control group on patient activation, patient engagement, and shared decision-making as well as other patient-level outcomes. PARTNER-MH also examines organizational factors that could impact its future implementation in VHA settings. ResultsParticipants (N=50) were Veterans who were mostly male (n=31, 62%) and self-identified as non-Hispanic (n=44, 88%) and Black (n=35, 70%) with a median age of 45 to 54 years. Most had at least some college education, and 32% (16/50) had completed ≥4 years of college. Randomization produced comparable groups in terms of characteristics and outcome measures at baseline, except for sex. ConclusionsRather than simply documenting health disparities among vulnerable populations, PARTNER-MH offers opportunities to evaluate a tailored, culturally sensitive, system-based intervention to improve patient engagement and patient-provider communication in mental health care for racially and ethnically minoritized individuals. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04515771; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04515771 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/37712

Background The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) dashboard to assist in identifying Veterans at risk for adverse opioid overdose or suicide-related events. In 2018, a policy was implemented requiring VHA facilities to complete case reviews of Veterans identified by STORM as very high risk for adverse events. Nationally, facilities were randomized in STORM implementation to four arms based on required oversight and by the timing of an increase in the number of required case reviews. To help evaluate this policy intervention, we aimed to (1) identify barriers and facilitators to implementing case reviews; (2) assess variation across the four arms; and (3) evaluate associations between facility characteristics and implementation barriers and facilitators. Method Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we developed a semi-structured interview guide to examine barriers to and facilitators of implementing the STORM policy. A total of 78 staff from 39 purposefully selected facilities were invited to participate in telephone interviews. Interview transcripts were coded and then organized into memos, which were rated using the −2 to + 2 CFIR rating system. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the mean ratings on each CFIR construct, the associations between ratings and study arm, and three facility characteristics (size, rurality, and academic detailing) associated with CFIR ratings. We used the mean CFIR rating for each site to determine which constructs differed between the sites with highest and lowest overall CFIR scores, and these constructs were described in detail. Results Two important CFIR constructs emerged as barriers to implementation: Access to knowledge and information and Evaluating and reflecting. Little time to complete the CASE reviews was a pervasive barrier. Sites with higher overall CFIR scores showed three important facilitators: Leadership engagement, Engaging, and Implementation climate. CFIR ratings were not significantly different between the four study arms, nor associated with facility characteristics. Plain Language Summary: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) created a tool called the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation dashboard. This dashboard shows Veterans at risk for opioid overdose or suicide-related events. In 2018, a national policy required all VHA facilities to complete case reviews for Veterans who were at high risk for these events. To evaluate this policy implementation, 78 staff from 39 facilities were interviewed. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) implementation framework was used to create the interview. Interview transcripts were coded and organized into site memos. The site memos were rated using CFIR's −2 to +2 rating system. Ratings did not differ for four study arms related to oversight and timing. Ratings were not associated with facility characteristics. Leadership, engagement and implementation climate were the strongest facilitators for implementation. Lack of time, knowledge, and feedback were important barriers.

Abstract Background Over 1100 veterans work in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) as peer specialists (PSs)—those with formal training who support other veterans with similar diagnoses. A White House Executive Action mandated the pilot reassignment of VHA PSs from their usual placement in mental health to 25 primary care Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACTs) in order to broaden the provision of wellness services that can address many chronic illnesses. An evaluation of this initiative was undertaken to assess the impact of outside assistance on the deployment of PSs in PACTs, as implementation support is often needed to prevent challenges commonly experienced when first deploying PSs in new settings. Methods This study was a cluster-randomized hybrid II effectiveness-implementation trial to test the impact of minimal implementation support vs. facilitated implementation on the deployment of VHA PSs in PACT over 2 years. Twenty-five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) were recruited to reassign mental health PSs to provide wellness-oriented care in PACT. Sites in three successive cohorts (n = 7, 10, 8) over 6-month blocks were matched and randomized to each study condition. In facilitated implementation, an outside expert worked with site stakeholders through a site visit and regular calls, and provided performance data to guide the planning and address challenges. Minimal implementation sites received a webinar and access to the VHA Office of Mental Health Services work group. The two conditions were compared on PS workload data and veteran measures of activation, satisfaction, and functioning. Qualitative interviews collected information on perceived usefulness of the PS services. Results In the first year, sites that received facilitation had higher numbers of unique veterans served and a higher number of PS visits, although the groups did not differ after the second year. Also, sites receiving external facilitation started delivering PS services more quickly than minimal support sites. All sites in the external facilitation condition continued in the pilot into the second year, whereas two of the sites in the minimal assistance condition dropped out after the first year. There were no differences between groups on veterans’ outcomes—activation, satisfaction, and functioning. Most veterans were very positive about the help they received as evidenced in the qualitative interviews. Discussion These findings demonstrate that external facilitation can be effective in supporting the implementation of PSs in primary care settings. The lack of significant differences across conditions after the second year highlights the positive outcomes associated with active facilitation, while also raising the important question of whether longer-term success may require some level of ongoing facilitation and implementation support. Trial registration This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT02732600 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02732600 ).

Sexual violence affects millions of Americans, and approximately one out of every three women and one out of every four men have experienced sexual violence during their lifetime. While prevention efforts have focused on implementing specific programmatic approaches, there has been relatively little focus on developing comprehensive and effective approaches to reduce sexual assault prevention across an organization. This study describes the development of the Prevention Evaluation Framework, an assessment targeting organizational best practices for comprehensive sexual assault prevention across multiple domains including human resources, collaborative relationships and infrastructure, use of evidence-informed approaches, quality implementation and continuous evaluation of programs/policies. Using the structured RAND/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness method to develop the assessment, we conducted a literature review and solicited expert feedback about what a comprehensive organizational approach to sexual assault prevention should entail. We then pilot tested the assessment with 3 United States military service academies; and continued to improve and adapt the assessment to a range of organizations with input from 6 Department of Defense headquarters organizations, and 9 universities across the country. Given the nascent state of the evidence about what makes an effective organizational approach to sexual assault prevention, the assessment reflects one way of promoting quality in this evolving field. The consistency between the experts’ ratings and the literature, and the relevance of the items across organizations suggest that the assessment provides important guidance to inform the development of comprehensive organizational approaches to sexual assault prevention and to the evaluation of ongoing efforts.

Abstract Background In 2018, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Notice 2018-08 requiring facilities to complete “case reviews” for Veterans identified in the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) dashboard as high risk for adverse outcomes among patients prescribed opioids. Half of the facilities were randomly assigned to a Notice version including additional oversight. We evaluated implementation strategies used, whether strategies differed by randomization arm, and which strategies were associated with case review completion rates. Methods Facility points of contact completed a survey assessing their facility’s use of 68 implementation strategies based on the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. We collected respondent demographic information, facility-level characteristics, and case review completion rates (percentage of high-risk patients who received a case review). We used Kruskal-Wallis tests and negative binomial regression to assess strategy use and factors associated with case reviews. Results Contacts at 89 of 140 facilities completed the survey (64%) and reported using a median of 23 (IQR 16–31) strategies. The median case review completion rate was 71% (IQR 48–95%). Neither the number or types of strategies nor completion rates differed by randomization arm. The most common strategies were using the STORM dashboard (97%), working with local opinion leaders (80%), and recruiting local partners (80%). Characteristics associated with case review completion rates included respondents being ≤ 35 years old (incidence rate ratio, IRR 1.35, 95% CI 1.09–1.67) and having < 5 years in their primary role (IRR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01–1.51), and facilities having more prior academic detailing around pain and opioid safety (IRR 1.40, 95% CI 1.12–1.75). Controlling for these characteristics, implementation strategies associated with higher completion rates included (1) monitoring and adjusting practices (adjusted IRR (AIRR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.11–1.77), (2) identifying adaptations while maintaining core components (AIRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03–1.60), (3) conducting initial training (AIRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02–1.50), and (4) regularly sharing lessons learned (AIRR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09–1.59). Conclusions In this national evaluation of strategies used to implement case reviews of patients at high risk of opioid-related adverse events, point of contact age and tenure in the current role, prior pain-related academic detailing at the facility, and four specific implementation strategies were associated with case review completion rates, while randomization to additional centralized oversight was not. Trial registration This project is registered at the ISRCTN Registry with number ISRCTN16012111 . The trial was first registered on May 3, 2017.

Abstract Introduction: Implementation Science (IS) is a complex and rapidly evolving discipline, posing challenges for educators. We developed, implemented, and evaluated a novel, pragmatic approach to teach IS. Methods: Getting To Implementation (GTI)-Teach was developed as a seven-step educational model to guide students through the process of developing, conducting, and sustaining an IS research project. During the four-week online course, students applied the steps to self-selected implementation problems. Students were invited to complete two online post-course surveys to assess course satisfaction and self-reported changes in IS knowledge and relevance of GTI-Teach Steps to their work. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics; self-reported post-course changes in IS knowledge were compared using paired t-tests. Results: GTI-Teach was developed to include seven Steps: 1. Define the implementation problem; 2. Conceptualize the problem; 3. Prioritize implementation barriers and facilitators; 4. Select and tailor implementation strategies; 5. Design an implementation study; 6. Evaluate implementation; 7. Sustain implementation. Thirteen students, ranging in experience from medical students to full professors, enrolled in and completed the first GTI-Teach course. Of the seven students (54%) completing an end-of course survey, six (86%) were very satisfied with the course. Ten students (77%) responded to the tailored, 6-month post-course follow-up survey. They retrospectively reported a significant increase in their knowledge across all steps of GTI-Teach (1.3–1.8 points on a 5-point Likert scale) and rated each of the Steps as highly relevant to their work. Conclusions: GTI-Teach is a seven-step model for teaching IS fundamentals that students reported increased their knowledge and was relevant to their work.