Search

: Introduction: Implementation science (IS) offers methods to systematically achieve the Ending the HIV Epidemic goals in the United States, as well as the global UNAIDS targets. Federal funders such as the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) have invested in implementation research to achieve these goals, including supporting the AIDS Research Centres (ARCs), which focus on high‐impact science in HIV and mental health (MH). To facilitate capacity building for the HIV/MH research workforce in IS, “grey areas,” or areas of IS that are confusing, particularly for new investigators, should be addressed in the context of HIV/MH research. Discussion: A group of IS experts affiliated with NIMH‐funded ARCs convened to identify common and challenging grey areas. The group generated a preliminary list of 19 grey areas in HIV/MH‐related IS. From the list, the authors developed a survey which was distributed to all ARCs to prioritize grey areas to address in this paper. ARC members across the United States (N = 60) identified priority grey areas requiring clarification. This commentary discusses topics with 40% or more endorsement. The top grey areas that ARC members identified were: (1) Differentiating implementation strategies from interventions; (2) Determining when an intervention has sufficient evidence for adaptation; (3) Integrating recipient perspectives into HIV/MH implementation research; (4) Evaluating whether an implementation strategy is evidence‐based; (5) Identifying rigorous approaches for evaluating the impact of implementation strategies in the absence of a control group or randomization; and (6) Addressing innovation in HIV/MH IS grants. The commentary addresses each grey area by drawing from the existing literature (when available), providing expert guidance on addressing each in the context of HIV/MH research, and providing domestic and global HIV and HIV/MH case examples that address these grey areas. Conclusions: HIV/MH IS is key to achieving domestic and international goals for ending HIV transmission and mitigating its impact. Guidance offered in this paper can help to overcome challenges to rigorous and high‐impact HIV/MH implementation research., INTRODUCTION Implementation science (IS), defined by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as “the scientific study of the use of strategies to adopt and integrate evidence‐based health interventions (EBIs),” offers [...]

Particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter no larger than 2.5 μm (PM 2.5 ) has been linked to cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) but evidence for vulnerability by sex remains unclear. We performed systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the state of scientific evidence on whether cardiovascular risks from PM 2.5 differ for men compared to women. The databases Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, and GreenFILE were searched for studies published Jan. 1995 to Feb. 2020. Observational studies conducting subgroup analysis by sex for impacts of short-term or long-term exposure to PM 2.5 on target CVDs were included. Data were independently extracted in duplicate and pooled with random-effects meta-regression. Risk ratios (RRs) for long-term exposure and percent changes in outcomes for short-term exposure were calculated per 10 μg/m 3 PM 2.5 increase. Quality of evidence of risk differences by sex was rated following Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). A total of 12,502 articles were screened, with 61 meeting inclusion criteria. An additional 32 studies were added from citation chaining. RRs of all CVD mortality for long-term PM 2.5 for men and women were the same (1.14; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.22) indicating no statistically different risks. Men and women did not have statistically different risks of daily CVD mortality, hospitalizations from all CVD, ischemic heart disease, cardiac arrest, acute myocardial infarction, and heart failure from short-term PM 2.5 exposure (difference in % change in risk per 10 μg/m 3 PM 2.5 : 0.04 (95% CI, -0.42 to 0.51); -0.05 (-0.47 to 0.38); 0.17 (-0.90, 1.24); 1.42 (-1.06, 3.97); 1.33 (-0.05, 2.73); and -0.48 (-1.94, 1.01), respectively). Analysis using GRADE found low or very low quality of evidence for sex differences for PM 2.5 -CVD risks. In conclusion, this meta-analysis and quality of evidence assessment of current observational studies found very limited evidence of the effect modification by sex for effects of PM 2.5 on CVD outcomes in adults, which can inform clinical approaches and policies.