Search

Young adults experiencing homelessness have poorer overall health compared with the general population. However, not much is known about how health care needs may change in the transition from homelessness to supportive housing. This study utilizes the Gelberg-Andersen Behavioral Model for Vulnerable Populations to examine unmet health care needs among young adults currently experiencing homelessness and formerly homeless young adults living in supportive housing.This study includes data from 192 young adults who were either residing in a supportive housing program (n=103) or were "unhoused" (eg, residing on the street, staying in emergency shelters; n=89) in Los Angeles, CA, between 2017 and 2019. Hierarchical modeling examined unmet health care needs and factors that may enable those needs to be met, controlling for predisposing and other need factors.Controlling for predisposing and other need characteristics, this study identified increased enabling factors among those residing in supportive housing, the most widely applied intervention for homelessness. Participants who resided in supportive housing were more likely to report at least 1 type of unmet need than youth who did not have access to housing. Additional findings regarding the association of enabling factors and unmet need yield mixed results based on the type of unmet need.The acknowledgment of unmet needs may, in fact, be a byproduct of shifting priorities, which often occurs in the transition from homelessness to housing. Understanding the unmet need and health implications of this transition has relevance for practice as we work to better support formerly homeless young adults in meeting the needs that they identify.

BACKGROUND Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) has been used with young people experiencing homelessness to gather information on contexts associated with homelessness and risk behavior in real time and has proven feasible in this population. However, the extent to which EMA may affect the attitudes or behaviors of young adults who are currently or were formerly homeless and are residing in supportive housing has not been well investigated. OBJECTIVE This study aims to describe the feedback regarding EMA study participation from young adults who are currently or were formerly homeless and examine the reactivity to EMA participation and compliance. METHODS This mixed methods study used cross-sectional data collected before and after EMA, intensive longitudinal data from a 7-day EMA prompting period, and focus groups of young adults who are currently or were formerly homeless in Los Angeles, California, between 2017 and 2019. RESULTS Qualitative data confirmed the quantitative findings. Differences in the experience of EMA between young adults who are currently or were formerly homeless were found to be related to stress or anxiety, interference with daily life, difficulty charging, behavior change, and honesty in responses. Anxiety and depression symptomatology decreased from before to after EMA; however, compliance was not significantly associated with this decrease. CONCLUSIONS The results point to special considerations when administering EMA to young adults who are currently or were formerly homeless. EMA appears to be slightly more burdensome for young adults who are currently homeless than for those residing in supportive housing, which are nuances to consider in the study design. The lack of a relationship between study compliance and symptomatology suggests low levels of reactivity. CLINICALTRIAL

Background Integrated behavioral health and primary care can improve the health of persons with complex chronic conditions. The Behavioral Health Integration and Complex Care Initiative (BHICCI) implemented integrated care across a large health system. Whether Behavioral Health Organizations (BHOs) and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) implemented the BHICCI differently is unclear. Objectives The objective of this study was to evaluate integration under the BHICCI and to understand implementation differences between BHOs and FQHCs. Methods We used a convergent parallel mixed-method design. Integration was measured quantitatively using the Maine Health Access Site Self-Assessment (SSA), which was completed by clinic teams at baseline and 24 months, and through n=70 qualitative interviews with initiative stakeholders, which were organized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results were compared to understand how qualitative findings explained quantitative results. Results Data were collected in 7 clinics (n=2 FQHC; n=5 BHOs). FQHCs reported greatest improvement in the client centered subscale, with a baseline score of 4.6 (SD=0.64) and 7.8 (SD=0.89) at 24 months. BHOs reported greatest improvement in the organizational supports for integration subscale, with a baseline score of 4.8 (SD=1.07) and 7.9 (SD=1.1) at 24 months. Our Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research analysis illustrates contextual factors, such as insurance plan supports and clinic-level challenges, that explain these scores. Conclusions All clinical settings received support from the health plan, but differences between BHOs and FQHCs affected integration progress. Study results can help identify organizational practices that advance or undermine the delivery of integrated care across multiple clinical settings.

Little is known about the contributions of practice facilitators in settings aiming to deliver integrated behavioral health and primary care. This scoping review identifies peer-reviewed articles that describe efforts to deliver integrated behavioral health care with the support of practice facilitators. Five databases were systematically searched to identify empirical and conceptual papers. Fourteen articles met the following inclusion criteria: (1) empirical studies evaluating the effectiveness of practice facilitation (n = 4), (2) study protocols that will test the effectiveness of practice facilitation (n = 2), (3) studies that included practice facilitators as part of a larger intervention without evaluating their effectiveness (n = 5), and (4) conceptual manuscripts endorsing practice facilitation for integrated care (n = 3). Practice facilitators can potentially support health systems in delivering integrated behavioral health care, but future research is needed to understand their necessary qualifications, the effectiveness of practice facilitation these efforts, and what study outcomes are appropriate for evaluating whether practice facilitation has been effective.

A1 Introduction to the 8th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation: Optimizing Personal and Population Health David Chambers1, Lisa Simpson2 1Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA; 2AcademyHealth, Washington, DC, 20036, USA For the second year in a row, we are pleased to be able to share the proceedings of the Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health, a large meeting reflecting the expanding and evolving research field that seeks to optimize the use of evidence, interventions, and tools from health research within the myriad of settings where people receive health care, make health-related decisions, and increase knowledge of influences on the health of the population. We once again benefitted from a strong partnership, co-led by AcademyHealth and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), with co-sponsorship from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the WT Grant Foundation. In addition, we benefitted from the collaboration of staff from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). NIH and AcademyHealth again co-led the program planning committee, which focused on the development of the plenary sessions, and convened a scientific advisory panel to suggest speakers and advise on the overall conference development. The planning committee identified four key areas around which to focus the plenary panels and keynote address. Dr. America Bracho, M.D., M.P.H., Executive Director of Latino Health Access in Orange County, California, spoke about the opportunities for implementation science to inform efforts to improve community health and engage underserved populations. The three plenary panels each focused on a significant future direction for dissemination and implementation (D & I) research: the interface between D&I science and population health, emerging opportunities for global implementation science, and the challenges around implementation of precision medicine. The plenary sessions were complemented by facilitated lunchtime discussions on the same three topics, which offered participants an opportunity to identify key research questions for each and brainstorm next steps. Synopses of the lunchtime discussions are included in this supplement. Given the overwhelming success of the 2014 conference and the large number of abstracts received in 2014 (660), the program planning committee identified eight program tracks for abstract submitters to respond to, and through which the concurrent sessions of the conference would be organized. These tracks—Behavioral Health, Big Data and Technology for Dissemination and Implementation Research, Clinical Care Settings, Global Dissemination and Implementation, Promoting Health Equity and Eliminating Disparities, Health Policy Dissemination and Implementation, Prevention and Public Health, and Models, Measures and Methods— were designed to enable conference participants to follow a consistent theme across the multiple sessions of the conference and form the structure of this supplement. The call for abstracts, including individual paper presentations, individual posters and panel presentations, resulted in 515 submissions, spread across the eight thematic tracks. Over one hundred reviewers devoted their time to ensuring a comprehensive and expert review, and reviews were conducted within each track and coordinated by the track leads. For the final program, 64 oral presentations, 12 panels, and 263 posters were presented over the two-day meeting. Slides for the oral presentations and panels (with the agreement of the authors) were posted on the conference website (http://diconference.academyhealth.org/archives/2015archives) and all abstracts were included on the conference webapp (https://academyhealth.confex.com/academyhealth/2015di/meetingapp.cgi). This supplement has compiled the abstracts for presented papers, panel sessions, and lunchtime discussions from the 8th Annual Meeting on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health: Optimizing Personal and Population Health. We are pleased to have the abstracts from the conference together in one volume once again, and look forward to the 9th Annual meeting, scheduled for December in Washington, D.C.