Search

Telemedicine consults, including video consults, telephone consults, electronic consults, and virtual conferences, may be particularly valuable in the management of chronic pulmonary diseases, but there is limited guidance on best practices for pulmonary telemedicine consults.This scoping review aims to identify, characterize, and analyze gaps in the published literature on telemedicine consults health providers use to manage patients with chronic pulmonary diseases.We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from database origin through July 10, 2021. We included manuscripts describing applications of telemedicine consults for patients with chronic pulmonary diseases (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, pulmonary hypertension, and interstitial lung disease). We restricted our review to full-length articles published in English about provider-led (as opposed to nurse-led) telemedicine consults.Our search yielded 3,118 unique articles; 27 articles met inclusion criteria. All telemedicine consult modalities and chronic pulmonary conditions were well represented in the review except for pulmonary hypertension and interstitial lung disease, which were represented by one and no articles, respectively. Most articles described a small, single-center, observational study that focused on the acceptability, feasibility, utility, and/or clinical effectiveness of the telemedicine consult. Few studies had objectively measured clinical outcomes or included a comparator group, and none compared telemedicine consult modalities against one another.Our scoping review identified limited literature describing pulmonary telemedicine consults and highlighted several gaps in the literature that warrant increased attention. Providers treating chronic pulmonary diseases are left with limited guidance on best practices for telemedicine consults.

Objective: Risky drinking remains high among young adults and is associated with negative health-related consequences. Brief interventions (BIs) are an evidence-based practice for risky drinking that are particularly well suited for young adults. However, the widespread implementation of BIs remains challenging. This article highlights guiding principles for researchers and clinicians seeking to implement BI for young adults. Method: Five guiding principles for the implementation of BIs for young adults with risky drinking are introduced as follows: (a) selecting an implementation model; (b) considering contextual factors; (c) specifying an implementation strategy; (d) assessing implementation outcomes; and (e) embracing hybrid effectiveness-implementation designs. Advancing health equity is considered a key crosscutting theme. Results: Multiple implementation models are discussed including process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories, and evaluation frameworks. Contextual factors impacting BI implementation are then considered across multiple levels within an organization. Next, we present methods for selecting implementation strategies and discuss implementation outcomes that can be measured during preimplementation, implementation, and sustainability phases. Finally, we encourage employing hybrid effectiveness-implementation designs to reduce the BI science-practice gap. Guiding principles are illustrated with examples from two National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism-funded studies exploring BI implementation domestically and internationally. Conclusions: This article introduces foundational principles and emerging strategies to nonspecialist researchers, clinicians, and policymakers seeking to enhance the dissemination and implementation of BIs. Advancing the dissemination and implementation of BIs is essential to ensure that investments in BI research are fully realized to equitably improve public health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The present study sought to understand the antecedents to COVID-19 vaccination among those reporting a change in vaccine intention in order to improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the United States. We employed semi-structured interviews and one focus group discussion with vaccinated and unvaccinated Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employees and Veterans at three Veterans' Affairs medical centers between January and June 2021. A subset of these participants (n=21) self-reported a change in COVID-19 vaccine intention and were selected for additional analysis. We combined thematic analysis using the 5C scale (confidence, collective responsibility, complacency, calculation, constraints) as our theoretical framework with a constant comparative method from codes based on the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. We generated 13 themes distributed across the 5C constructs that appeared to be associated with a change in COVID-19 vaccine intention. Themes included a trusted family member, friend or colleague in a healthcare field, a trusted healthcare professional, distrust of government or politics (confidence); duty to family and protection of others (collective responsibility); perceived health status and normative beliefs (complacency); perceived vaccine safety, perceived risk-benefit, and orientation towards deliberation (calculation); and ease of process (constraints). Key factors in promoting vaccine uptake included a desire to protect family; and conversations with as key factors in promoting vaccine uptake. Constructs from the 5C scale are useful in understanding intrapersonal changes in vaccine intentions over time, which may help public health practitioners improve future vaccine uptake.In this study of the Veteran and VA employee population, we aimed to understand what factors led to a decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. As part of a quality improvement project, we interviewed individuals at three Veterans’ Affairs sites in the first six months of 2021. We then used a smaller sample of 21 participants who reported a change in their intentions to receive a COVID-19 vaccine to analyze for this study. This analysis utilizes constructs from the 5C scale, which was developed to understand the conditions required for an individual to decide to receive a vaccine (confidence, collective responsibility, complacency, calculation, constraints). The coding process revealed a number of recurring themes across the interviews falling under each of the five constructs, but concepts relating to vaccine confidence (i.e., level of trust in those developing and disseminating the vaccine) were most common, and constraints (i.e., psychological and structural barriers that stand in the way of vaccination) appeared least frequently in our interviews. We found that significant motivators to receive the vaccine included a desire to protect family and conversations with trusted clinicians, particularly mental healthcare providers. Our study was unique in using the 5Cs to understand changes in vaccine changes over time. Findings show that change in vaccine attitudes is possible even in the presence of concerns and shed light on approaches that public health providers could use to improve vaccine and booster rates.

Objective: The implementation of evidence-based treatments (EBTs) to address posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a public health priority. Successful EBT implementation requires effective collaboration between multiple stakeholder groups, including hospital leaders, providers, and patients, to build buy-in for this effort. Method: We describe our implementation science approach to meaningful stakeholder engagement, as part of a hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation trial of Skills Training in Affective and Interpersonal Regulation for PTSD treatment in primary care (STAIR-PC) at a large safety net hospital. We used primary care and patient community advisory boards (CABs) to interpret key informant interviews and identify strategies to adapt the intervention to ensure fit with the primary care setting. We documented our stakeholder engagement methodology through comprehensive field notes and minutes from CAB meetings, detailing the focus of meetings, suggestions for intervention and delivery adaptations, decision-making processes, and how disagreements about adaptations between stakeholders were resolved. To support replicability, we specify and operationalize implementation strategies to be used across each implementation phase of the trial. Results: Key strategies involved a) ensuring that research questions are relevant to both patients and clinical providers; b) tailoring interventions that are flexible and adaptable to the needs of the local setting; c) continuous engagement of patients and providers throughout the implementation process; and d) building mutual respect, trust, and credibility between the research team, various provider groups, and patients. Conclusions: Our approach to engaging stakeholders informed an implementation blueprint to guide implementation of EBTs for PTSD in safety net hospital primary care clinics. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Childhood obesity is associated with negative physical and psychosocial outcomes, especially for children from low-income backgrounds. It is critical to adapt evidence-based family healthy weight programs to meet the needs of this population. The Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-Based Interventions was used to describe the process of using qualitative data from community and intervention stakeholders, children with overweight or obesity from low-income backgrounds, and caregivers to guide adaptations to the JOIN for ME pediatric weight management intervention. Qualitative interviews were conducted with key community and intervention stakeholders (e.g., nurse care managers, prior JOIN for ME coaches; N = 21). Focus groups were conducted in both Spanish and English with children with overweight or obesity from low-income backgrounds (N = 35) and caregivers of children with overweight or obesity from low-income backgrounds (N = 71). Qualitative data analysis informed modifications including content adaptations to simplify and tailor materials, contextual adaptations to improve intervention engagement and framing, resource awareness, and modality of delivery, training adaptations, and implementation/scale-up activities to increase connections with community partners. The process of engaging multiple stakeholder perspectives to tailor an existing intervention can provide a model for future researchers to improve the potential disseminability of an intervention.

The Toolkit for Optimal Recovery (TOR) is a mind–body program for patients with acute orthopedic injuries who are at risk for persistent pain/disability. In preparation for a multisite feasibility trial of TOR at three orthopedic trauma centers, we aim to qualitatively identify barriers and facilitators to study implementation and strategies to mitigate the implementation barriers and leverage facilitators.We conducted 18 live video focus groups among providers and three one-on-one interviews with department chiefs at Level 1 trauma centers in three geographically diverse sites (N = 79 participants). Using a content analysis approach, we detected the site-specific barriers and facilitators of implementation of TOR clinical trial. We organized the data according to 26 constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), mapped to three Proctor implementation outcomes relevant to the desired study outcomes (acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility). Across the three sites, we mapped six of the CFIR constructs to acceptability, eight to appropriateness, and three to feasibility. Prominent perceived barriers across all three sites were related to providers’ lack of knowledge/comfort addressing psychosocial factors, and organizational cultures of prioritizing workflow efficiency over patients’ psychosocial needs (acceptability), poor fit between TOR clinical trial and the fast-paced clinic structure as well as basic needs of some patients (appropriateness), and limited resources (feasibility). Suggestions to maximize the implementation of the TOR trial included provision of knowledge/tools to improve providers’ confidence, streamlining study recruitment procedures, creating a learning collaborative, tailoring the study protocol based on local needs assessments, exercising flexibility in conducting research, dedicating research staff, and identifying/promoting champions and using novel incentive structures with regular check-ins, while keeping study procedures as nonobtrusive and language as de-stigmatizing as possible. These data could serve as a blueprint for implementation of clinical research and innovations in orthopedic and other medical settings.

Moving evidence into practice requires the support of stakeholders, who are critical actors in the research process. Yet, research teams need strategies for determining who these stakeholders are, what their roles should be, and how to involve them in research and dissemination activities. In this Perspective, we discuss steps for identifying, categorizing, and including stakeholders in the research process, as a precursor to involving them as communication partners in research dissemination efforts. Effectively communicating the results of research is critical for increasing stakeholders’ buy-in for the adoption and sustainment of this evidence. However, this communication is best if it comes from the end-users themselves, the stakeholders, who have a specified involvement in the research process. Combining elements from dissemination, implementation, and management science literature, we identify specific tools and strategies for researchers to (1) understand the roles of various stakeholders potentially impacted by their work, and (2) recognize the specific communication activities these stakeholders could be engaged in, to support the dissemination of research findings. We present a 3-Step Plan for identifying, categorizing, and involving stakeholders in the research process in a way that will lead to their role as communication partners when results are ready to be disseminated widely.

Identifying and addressing social risks and social needs in healthcare settings is an important step towards achieving health equity. Assessing Circumstances and Offering Resources for Needs (ACORN) is a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) social risk screening and referral model that aims to systematically identify and address social needs. Since initial piloting in 2018, our team has collaborated with clinical and operations partners to implement ACORN across multiple VA clinical settings while adapting and tailoring the initiative to meet the needs of different populations, specialties, and individuals administering screening. Given ACORN's complexity as a growing initiative with multiple partners and frequent real-time modifications within a large national healthcare system, we recognized a need to systematically document the rationale and process of adaptations over time. We looked to three implementation frameworks—RE-AIM, the Adaptome, and FRAME—to describe the rationale for adaptations, the nature of and context within which adaptations were made, and the details of each adaptation. In this manuscript, we uniquely interweave these three frameworks to document adaptations to ACORN across diverse VA clinical settings, with a focus on how adaptations support the promotion of heath equity in the Veteran population.

Sexual assault and harassment are significant problems that begin early in the lifespan. The current study sought to understand the contextual factors that influence the implementation of school-wide sexual assault prevention programs in middle schools that focus on fostering community norms change. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is a menu of constructs arranged across 5 domains that assists stakeholders in assessing and identifying site-specific determinants of successful intervention implementation. In the present study, researchers conducted a series of 10 interviews with middle school stakeholders (i.e., principals, guidance counselors, teachers) to document characteristics inside and outside of the school environment (i.e., cultural norms, relative priority, prior interventions, implementation climate) relevant to the implementation of prevention programming, using the CFIR as a guiding framework for analysis. Whereas schools recognized the importance of implementing violence prevention programming, stakeholders reported several other competing demands (i.e., time, resources) that make it difficult to implement rigorous programming without support from an outside agency/team. Community agencies and research teams hoping to implement violence prevention in middle schools can benefit from using stakeholder interviews grounded in the CFIR model to gain a better awareness of the school- and community-specific factors that are likely to influence successful implementation of violence prevention programs in middle schools.

Although family-based treatment (FBT) is considered a first-line treatment for adolescent anorexia nervosa (AN), it is underutilized in community settings and is unavailable to many families for a multitude of practical reasons (e.g., costs of treatment, transportation constraints). Adapting FBT interventions for delivery in home-based and community-based settings may reduce pragmatic barriers to treatment uptake and engagement.This pilot effectiveness-implementation trial will assess outcomes, implementation, and mechanisms of FBT adapted for the home setting (FBT-HB), delivered in the context of community-based behavioral health agencies. Adolescents with AN-spectrum disorders (n = 50) and their caregivers will be randomly assigned to either FBT-HB or home-based treatment as usual (TAU; integrated family therapy approach). Caregivers and adolescents will provide data on weight, eating, and putative treatment mechanisms, including caregiver self-efficacy and adolescent eating-related and weight-related distress. Implementation constructs of feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness will be measured among providers and participating families.We expect that FBT-HB will be feasible, acceptable, and appropriate, and will outperform TAU in terms of improvements in adolescent weight and eating-related psychopathology. We further expect that caregiver self-efficacy and adolescent eating-related and weight-related distress, but not general distress, will show greater improvements in FBT-HB relative to TAU and will be associated with better adolescent weight and eating outcomes in FBT-HB.The proposed study has clear potential to advance scientific and clinical understanding of the real-world effectiveness of FBT for AN, including whether adapting it for the home setting improves its accessibility and effects on treatment outcome.

Recent articles have highlighted the importance of incorporating implementation science concepts into pandemic-related research. However, limited research has been documented to date regarding implementation outcomes that may be unique to COVID-19 vaccinations and how to utilize implementation strategies to address vaccine program-related implementation challenges. To address these gaps, we formed a global COVID-19 implementation workgroup of implementation scientists who met weekly for over a year to review the available literature and learn about ongoing research during the pandemic. We developed a hierarchy to prioritize the applicability of “lessons learned” from the vaccination-related implementation literature. We identified applications of existing implementation outcomes as well as identified additional implementation outcomes. We also mapped implementation strategies to those outcomes. Our efforts provide rationale for the utility of using implementation outcomes in pandemic-related research. Furthermore, we identified three additional implementation outcomes: availability, health equity, and scale-up. Results include a list of COVID-19 relevant implementation strategies mapped to the implementation outcomes.

Objectives To inform how the VA should develop and implement network adequacy standards, we convened an expert panel to discuss Community Care Network (CCN) adequacy and how VA might implement network adequacy standards for community care. Data sources/study setting Data were generated from expert panel ratings and from an audio-recorded expert panel meeting conducted in Arlington, Virginia, in October 2017. Study design We used a modified Delphi panel process involving one round of expert panel ratings provided by nine experts in network adequacy standards. Expert panel members received a list of network adequacy standard measures used in commercial and government market and were provided a rating form listing a total of 11 measures and characteristics to rate. Data collection methods Items on the rating form were individually discussed during an expert panel meeting between the nine expert panel members and VA Office of Community Care leaders. Attendees addressed discordant views and generated revised or new standards accordingly. Recorded audio data were transcribed to facilitate thematic analysis regarding opportunities and challenges with implementing network adequacy standards in VA Community Care. Principal findings The five highest ranked standards were network directories for Veterans, regular reporting of network adequacy data to VA, maximum wait time/distance standards, minimum ratio of providers to enrolled population, and qualitative assessments of network adequacy. During the expert panel discussion with VA Community Care leaders, opportunities and challenges implementing network adequacy standards were highlighted. Conclusions Our expert panel shed light on priorities for network adequacy to be implemented under CCN contracts, such as developing comprehensive provider directories for Veterans to use when selecting community providers. Remaining questions focus on whether the VA could reasonably develop and implement network adequacy standards given current Congressional restraints on VA reimbursement to community providers.

Background This paper reports on a qualitative evaluation of a hybrid type II stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial using implementation facilitation to implement team-based care in the form of the collaborative chronic care model (CCM) in interdisciplinary outpatient mental health teams. The objective of this analysis is to compare the alignment of sites’ clinical processes with the CCM elements at baseline (time 1) and after 12 months of implementation facilitation (time 2) from the perspective of providers. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews to assess the extent to which six CCM elements were in place: work role redesign, patient self-management support, provider decision support, clinical information systems, linkages to community resources, and organizational/leadership support. Interviews were transcribed and a priori CCM elements were coded using a directed content analysis approach at times 1 and 2. We sought consensus on, and compared, the extent to which each CCM element was in place at times 1 and 2. Results We conducted 27 and 31 telephone interviews at times 1 and 2, respectively, with outpatient mental health providers at nine participating sites. At time 1 and time 2, three CCM elements were most frequently present across the sites: work role redesign, patient self-management support, and provider decision support. The CCM elements with increased implementation from time 1 to time 2 were work role redesign, patient self-management support, and clinical information systems. For two CCM elements, linkages to community resources and organizational/leadership support, some sites had increased implementation at time 2 compared to time 1, while others had reductions. For the provider decision support element, we saw little change in the extent of its implementation. Conclusions Sites increased the extent of implementation on several CCM elements. The most progress was made in the CCM elements where sites had CCM-aligned processes in place at time 1. Teams made progress on elements they could more easily control, such as work role redesign. Our results suggest that maximizing the benefits of CCM-based outpatient mental health care may require targeting resources and training toward specific CCM elements—especially in the use of clinical information systems and linking with community resources. Trial registration Clinical Trials NCT02543840.

Background Many health care systems are beginning to encourage patients to use complementary and integrative health (CIH) therapies for pain management. Many clinicians have anecdotally reported that patients combining self-care CIH therapies with practitioner-delivered therapies report larger health improvements than do patients using practitioner-delivered or self-care CIH therapies alone. However, we are unaware of any trials in this area. Design The APPROACH Study (Assessing Pain, Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complementary and Integrative Health) assesses the value of veterans participating in practitioner-delivered CIH therapies alone or self-care CIH therapies alone compared with the combination of self-care and practitioner-delivered care. The study is being conducted in 18 Veterans Health Administration sites that received funding as part of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act to expand availability of CIH therapies. Practitioner-delivered therapies under study include chiropractic care, acupuncture, and therapeutic massage, and self-care therapies include tai chi/qi gong, yoga, and meditation. The primary outcome will be improvement on the Brief Pain Inventory 6 months after initiation of CIH as compared with baseline scores. Patients will enter treatment groups on the basis of the care they receive because randomizing patients to specific CIH therapies would require withholding therapies routinely offered at VA. We will address selection bias and confounding by using sites’ variations in business practices and other encouragements to receive different types of CIH therapies as a surrogate for direct randomization by using instrumental variable econometrics methods. Summary Real-world evidence about the value of combining self-care and practitioner-delivered CIH therapies from this pragmatic trial will help guide the VA and other health care systems in offering specific nonpharmacological approaches to manage patients’ chronic pain.

Diagnosis of rare, genetic diseases is challenging, but conceptual frameworks of the diagnostic process can be used to guide benchmarking and process improvement initiatives. Using the National Academy of Medicine diagnostic framework, we assessed the extent of, and reasons for diagnostic delays and diagnostic errors in schwannomatosis, a neurogenetic syndrome characterized by nerve sheath tumors and chronic pain. We reviewed the medical records of 97 people with confirmed or probable schwannomatosis seen in two U.S. tertiary care clinics. Time-to-event analysis revealed a median time from first symptom to diagnosis of 16.7 years (95% CI, 7.5-26.0 years) and median time from first medical consultation to diagnosis of 9.8 years (95% CI, 3.5-16.2 years). Factors associated with longer times to diagnosis included initial signs/symptoms that were intermittent, non-specific, or occurred at younger ages (p

BACKGROUND Veterans Affairs is dedicated to providing a Whole Health approach to care, including offering complementary and integrative health (CIH) approaches to Veterans. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to examine the association of CIH participation with Veterans' patient-reported outcomes over time. RESEARCH DESIGN A survey of patient-reported outcomes at 5 timepoints: baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months. SUBJECTS Veterans participating in any type of CIH approach at 2 Veterans Affairs medical centers. MEASURES Mixed hierarchical models with repeated variables were used to test the hypothesis that participating in any CIH approach would be associated with Veterans' overall physical/mental health [Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 28 (PROMIS 28)], pain intensity, perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale-4), and engagement in their care (Patient Activation Measure-13), controlling for age, male sex, site, participation in other CIH approaches, and surveys completed. RESULTS We received 401 surveys from 119 Veterans (72% male, age range: 29-85 y) across all timepoints. Yoga participation was related to decreases in perceived stress (P

Background Clinical guidelines support early discontinuation of antimicrobials after cardiac device procedures; however, prolonged courses of antimicrobials are common. Methods We conducted semistructured interviews with 13 electrophysiologists representing diverse geographic and clinical settings of care to identify perceived barriers and facilitators to discontinuing postprocedure antimicrobial prophylaxis as part of a formative evaluation prior to implementing a program to improve uptake of guideline recommendations. A directed content analysis approach was used to map responses to the Implementation Outcomes Framework. Results Data indicated that electrophysiologists were not willing to stop postprocedural antimicrobials, indicating a lack of acceptability of clinical guidelines. Feasibility, fidelity, cost, and appropriateness were also frequently cited. Factors associated with prolonged antimicrobial prescribing included beliefs about lack of harm and possible benefit. There was a strong “cultural inertia” to conform to institutional normative practices. Reasons for conforming ranged from streamlining processes for clinical staff and concerns about being perceived as an “outlier.” Conclusions Institutional culture and beliefs about consequences of cardiac device infections versus antimicrobial use appeared to be major drivers of current practice. The desire to promote institutional standardization suggests that strategies to enhance implementation of prophylaxis guidelines must include facility-level changes, rather than interventions directed only at individual-providers.

Online behavioral obesity treatment is a promising first-line approach to weight management in primary care. However, little is known about contextual influences on implementation. Understand qualitative contextual factors that affect the implementation process, as experienced by key primary care stakeholders implementing the program. Online behavioral obesity treatment was implemented across a 60-clinic primary care practice network. Patients were enrolled by nurse care managers (NCMs; N = 14), each serving 2–5 practices. NCMs were randomized to one of two implementation conditions—“Basic” (standard implementation) or “Enhanced” (i.e., with added patient tracking features and more implementation strategies employed). NCMs completed qualitative interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were transcribed and analyzed via directed content analysis. Emergent categories were summarized by implementation condition and assigned a valence according to positive/negative influence. Individuals in the Enhanced condition viewed two aspects of the intervention as more positively influencing than Basic NCMs: Design Quality & Packaging (i.e., online program aesthetics), and Cost (i.e., no-cost program, clinician time savings). In both conditions, strongly facilitating factors included: Compatibility between intervention and clinical context; Intervention Source (from a trusted local university); and Evidence Strength & Quality supporting effectiveness. Findings highlight the importance of considering stakeholders’ perspectives on the most valued types of evidence when introducing a new intervention, ensuring the program aligns with organizational priorities, and considering how training resources and feedback on patient progress can improve implementation success for online behavioral obesity treatment in primary care.

Although COVID-19 vaccines have been available to many U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system employees and Veteran patients since early 2021, vaccine receipt data indicates some groups are not receiving them. Our objective was to conduct a rapid qualitative assessment of Veterans' and VA employees' views on COVID-19 vaccination to inform clinical leaders' ongoing efforts to increase vaccine uptake across the VA. We employed semi-structured interviews and a focus group involving employees and Veterans as part of a quality improvement project between January and June 2021 at three VA medical centers. Thirty-one employees and 27 Veterans participated in semi-structured interviews; 5 Veterans from a national stakeholder organization participated in a focus group. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis, involving an a priori coding framework comprised of four domains with subcodes under each: contextual influences, barriers and facilitators, vaccine-specific issues, and VA/military experiences. We then classified initial codes into five categories of hesitancy: vaccine deliberation, dissent, distrust, indifference and skepticism. A subset of Veterans (n = 14) and employees (n = 8) identified as vaccine hesitant. Vaccine hesitancy categories were represented by subcodes of religion, culture, gender or socio-economic factors, perceptions of politics and policies, role of healthcare providers, and historical influences; (contextual influences); knowledge or awareness of vaccines, perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, and beliefs and attitudes about health and illness (barriers and facilitators); vaccine development process (vaccine-specific issues) and military experiences (VA/military factors). Facilitators involved talking with trusted others, ease of vaccine access, and perceptions of family and societal benefits of vaccines. Vaccine hesitancy is multi-faceted and likely requires multiple strategies for engaging in conversations to address Veteran and VA employee concerns. Messages should involve patient-centered communication strategies delivered by trusted healthcare providers and peers and should focus on addressing expected benefits for family, friends, and society.

Objective We conducted a formative evaluation to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the safety net integrated primary care setting and to identify (and respond to) new implementation barriers prior to a hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation trial of a posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment. Method We used surveys and qualitative interviews with employee stakeholders (N = 27) to (1) understand pandemic-related factors that may influence implementation, including changes in patient needs, provider experiences, and the practice, and (2) assess the need for augmentation to study design, implementation plan, or intervention. Results Conventional content analysis and survey findings suggest that patient acuity and volume increased provider burden, leading to high burnout. Although the shift to telehealth improved behavioral health access, issues with technology access and literacy were common. Changes to the study design and implementation plan, based on findings, included the provision of multi-modality treatments (in person, telehealth, web-administered), technology and administrative support, and other strategies for reducing provider burnout. Conclusions This study describes how an ongoing research study adapted to major changes to the implementation setting during the pandemic. Changes to study design and implementation plan were responsive to the shift to telehealth and therapist burden (and burnout) concerns.

Background Successful implementation of evidence-based treatments (EBT) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in primary care may address treatment access and quality gaps by providing care in novel and less stigmatized settings. Yet, PTSD treatments are largely unavailable in safety net primary care. We aimed to collect clinician stakeholder data on organizational, attitudinal, and contextual factors relevant to EBT implementation. Methods Our developmental formative evaluation was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), including (a) surveys assessing implementation climate and attitudes towards EBTs and behavioral health integration and (b) semi-structured interviews to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation and need for augmentation. Participants were hospital employees (N = 22), including primary care physicians (n = 6), integrated behavioral health clinicians (n = 8), community wellness advocates (n = 3), and clinic leadership (n = 5). We report frequency and descriptives of survey data and findings from directed content analysis of interviews. We used a concurrent mixed-methods approach, integrating survey and interview data collected simultaneously using a joint display approach. A primary care community advisory board (CAB) helped to refine interview guides and interpret findings. Results Stakeholders described implementation determinants of the EBT related to the CFIR domains of the intervention (relative advantage, adaptability), outer setting (patient needs and resources), inner setting (networks and communication, relative priority, leadership engagement, available resources), and individuals involved (knowledge and beliefs, cultural considerations). Stakeholders described strong attitudinal support (relative advantage), yet therapist time and capacity restraints are major PTSD treatment implementation barriers (available resources). Changes in hospital management were perceived as potentially allowing for greater access to behavioral health services, including EBTs. Patient engagement barriers such as stigma, mistrust, and care preferences were also noted (patient needs and resources). Recommendations included tailoring the intervention to meet existing workflows (adaptability), system alignment efforts focused on improving detection, referral, and care coordination processes (networks and communication), protecting clinician time for training and consultation (leadership engagement), and embedding a researcher in the practice (available resources). Conclusions Our evaluation identified key CFIR determinents of implementation of PTSD treatments in safety net integrated primary care settings. Our project also demonstrates that successful implementation necessitates strong stakeholder engagement.

Background: Overweight and obesity in children is a public health crisis in the United States. Although evidence-based interventions have been developed, such programs are difficult to access. Dissemination of evidence-based pediatric weight management interventions (PWMIs) to families from diverse low-income communities is the primary objective of the CDC Childhood Obesity Research Demonstration (CORD) projects. Methods: The goal of the Rhode Island CORD 3.0 project is to adapt the evidence-based PWMI, JOIN for ME, for delivery among diverse families from low-income backgrounds and to test it in a hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial design in which the aims are to examine implementation and patient-centered outcomes. Children between the ages of 6 and 12 years with BMI ≥85th percentile and a caregiver will be recruited through two settings, a federally qualified health center, which serves as a patient-centered medical home, or low-income housing. Dyads will receive a remotely delivered group-based intervention that is 10 months in duration and includes 16 weekly sessions, followed by 4 biweekly and 4 monthly meetings. Assessments of child and caregiver weight status and child health-related quality of life will be conducted at baseline, and at 4 and 10 months after the start of intervention. Implementation outcomes assessing intervention acceptability, adoption, feasibility, fidelity, and penetration/reach will be collected to inform subsequent dissemination. Conclusions: If the adapted version of the JOIN for ME intervention can be successfully implemented and is shown to be effective, this project will provide a model for a scalable PWMI for families from low-income backgrounds. ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT04647760.

Purpose. We investigated how health care systems should communicate with patients about possible exposures to blood-borne pathogens that may have occurred during their care. Our goal was to determine how best to communicate uncertain risk information in a way that would minimize harm to patients, maintain their trust, and encourage patients to seek follow-up treatment. Methods. Participants ( N = 1103) were randomized to receive one of six vignette surveys; 997 (98.4%) responded. All vignettes described the same event, but differed by risk level and recommendations (lower risk v. higher risk) and by communication mode (telephone, letter, social media). We measured participants’ perceived risk of blood-borne infection, trust in the health care system, and shared decision making about next clinical steps. Open-ended questions were analyzed using grounded thematic analysis. Results. When the vignette requested patients to undergo testing and practice certain health behaviors (higher risk), participants’ likelihood of seeking follow-up testing for blood-borne pathogens and their understanding of health issues increased. Perceived trust was unaffected by risk level or communication processes. Qualitative data indicated a desire for telephone communication from providers known to the patient. Limitations. It is not clear whether higher risk language or objective risk levels in vignettes motivated patients’ behavioral intentions. Conclusion. Using higher risk language when disclosing large-scale adverse events increased participants’ willingness to seek follow-up care. Implications. Health care organizations’ disclosures should focus on the next steps to take after health care exposures. This communication should involve helping patients to understand their personal health issues better, make them feel that they know which steps to take following the receipt of this information, and encouraging them to seek follow-up infectious disease testing in order to better take care of themselves.

Our research group created a public communication strategy of expressive writing, to use within our research center over the Massachusetts COVID-19 stay at home advisories. Our goals were to 1) build community, 2) recognize the unique experiences, needs, concerns and coping strategies of our colleagues, and 3) create a mechanism to creatively share those experiences. We conceptualized a weekly e-newsletter, "Creativity in the Time of COVID-19," a collective effort for expressing and documenting the extraordinary, lived experiences of our colleagues during this unique time of a coronavirus pandemic. Through 23 online issues, we have captured 72 colleagues' perspectives on social isolation, the challenges of working from home, and hope in finding connection through virtual platforms. We have organized the themes of these submissions, in the forms of photos, essays, poetry, original artwork, and more, according to three components of the Social Connection Framework: structural, functional and quality approaches to creating social connectedness.

Background Pregnant persons have received mixed messages regarding whether or not to receive COVID-19 vaccines as limited data are available regarding vaccine safety for pregnant and lactating persons and breastfeeding infants. Objective The aims of this study were to examine pregnant Veteran’s acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines, along with perceptions and beliefs regarding vaccine safety and vaccine conspiracy beliefs. Design and Participants We conducted a cross-sectional survey of pregnant Veterans enrolled in VA care who were taking part in an ongoing cohort study at 15 VA medical centers between January and May 2021. Main Measures Pregnant Veterans were asked whether they had been offered the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy, and whether they chose to accept or refuse it. Additional questions focused on perceptions of COVID-19 vaccine safety and endorsements of vaccine knowledge and conspiracy beliefs. Logistic regression was utilized to examine predictors of acceptance of a vaccine during pregnancy. Key Results Overall, 72 pregnant Veterans were offered a COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy; over two-thirds (69%) opted not to receive a vaccine. Reasons for not receiving a vaccine included potential effects on the baby (64%), side effects for oneself (30%), and immunity from a past COVID-19 infection (12%). Those who received a vaccine had significantly greater vaccine knowledge and less belief in vaccine conspiracy theories. Greater knowledge of vaccines in general (aOR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.2–2.6) and lower beliefs in vaccine conspiracies (aOR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.6–0.9) were the strongest predictors of acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. Conclusions Our study provides important insights regarding pregnant Veterans’ decisions to accept the COVID-19 vaccine, and reasons why they may choose not to accept the vaccine. Given the high endorsement of vaccine conspiracy beliefs, trusted healthcare providers should have ongoing, open discussions about vaccine conspiracy beliefs and provide additional information to dispel these beliefs.

Background Psychosocial factors are pivotal in recovery after acute orthopedic traumatic injuries. Addressing psychosocial factors is an important opportunity for preventing persistent pain and disability. We aim to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of psychosocial care within outpatient orthopedic trauma settings using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Proctor’s taxonomy of implementation outcomes, and to provide implementation strategies derived from qualitative data and supplemented by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change. Methods We conducted live video qualitative focus groups, exit interviews and individual interviews with stakeholders within 3 geographically diverse level 1 trauma settings (N = 79; 20 attendings, 28 residents, 10 nurses, 13 medical assistants, 5 physical therapists/social workers, and 3 fellows) at 3 trauma centers in Texas, Kentucky, and Massachusetts. We used directed and conventional content analyses to derive information on barriers, facilitators, and implementation strategies within 26 CFIR constructs nested within 3 relevant Proctor outcomes of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Results Stakeholders noted that implementing psychosocial care within their practice can be acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. Many perceived integrated psychosocial care as crucial for preventing persistent pain and reducing provider burden, noting they lack the time and specialized training to address patients’ psychosocial needs. Providers suggested strategies for integrating psychosocial care within orthopedic settings, including obtaining buy-in from leadership, providing concise and data-driven education to providers, bypassing stigma, and flexibly adapting to fast-paced clinics. Conclusions Results provide a blueprint for successful implementation of psychosocial care in orthopedic trauma settings, with important implications for prevention of persistent pain and disability.

Background Traditional research approaches do not promote timely implementation of evidence-based innovations (EBIs) to benefit patients. Embedding research within health systems can accelerate EBI implementation by blending rigorous methods with practical considerations in real-world settings. A state-of-the-art (SOTA) conference was convened in February 2019 with five workgroups that addressed five facets of embedded research and its potential to impact healthcare. This article reports on results from the workgroup focused on how embedded research programs can be implemented into heath systems for greatest impact. Methods Based on a pre-conference survey, participants indicating interest in accelerating implementation were invited to participate in the SOTA workgroup. Workgroup participants (N = 26) developed recommendations using consensus-building methods. Ideas were grouped by thematic clusters and voted on to identify top recommendations. A summary was presented to the full SOTA membership. Following the conference, the workgroup facilitators (LJD, CDH, NR) summarized workgroup findings, member-checked with workgroup members, and were used to develop recommendations. Results The workgroup developed 12 recommendations to optimize impact of embedded researchers within health systems. The group highlighted the tension between “ROI vs. R01” goals—where health systems focus on achieving return on their investments (ROI) while embedded researchers focus on obtaining research funding (R01). Recommendations are targeted to three key stakeholder groups : researchers, funders, and health systems. Consensus for an ideal foundation to support optimal embedded research is one that (1) maximizes learning; (2) aligns goals across all 3 stakeholders; and (3) implements EBIs in a consistent and timely fashion . Conclusions Four cases illustrate a variety of ways that embedded research can be structured and conducted within systems, by demonstrating key embedded research values to enable collaborations with academic affiliates to generate actionable knowledge and meaningfully accelerate implementation of EBIs to benefit patients. Implications Embedded research approaches have potential for transforming health systems and impacting patient health. Accelerating embedded research should be a focused priority for funding agencies to maximize a collective return on investment .