Search

Background The Timing Of Androgen Deprivation (TOAD) trial found an overall survival benefit for immediate vs delayed androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–relapsed or noncurable prostate cancer. However, broad eligibility criteria allowed entry of a heterogeneous participant group, including those with prior ADT exposure, raising concerns about subsequent androgen sensitivity. For these reasons, we completed previously specified subgroup analyses to assess if prior ADT was associated with ADT timing efficacy after PSA relapse. Methods We examined TOAD trial patient-level data for participants with PSA relapse after local therapy. We performed Kaplan-Meier analyses for overall survival stratified by prior ADT and randomized treatment arm (immediate or delayed ADT). We compared group characteristics using Mann-Whitney U and Fisher exact tests. All hypothesis tests were 2-sided. Results We identified 261 patients with PSA relapse, 125 of whom received prior ADT. Patients with prior ADT had higher PSA at presentation (12.1 vs 9.0 ng/mL; P Conclusions The survival benefit demonstrated in the TOAD trial may be driven by patients who received ADT prior to trial entry. We provide possible explanations for this finding with implications for treatment of PSA-relapsed prostate cancer and future study planning.

Background Men with prostate cancer are often treated with the suppression of testosterone through long-acting injectable drugs termed chemical castration or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In most cases, ADT is not an appropriate treatment for localized prostate cancer, indicating low-value care. Guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Behavior Change Wheel’s Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Model (COM-B), we conducted a qualitative study to identify behavioral determinants of low-value ADT use to manage localized prostate cancer, and theory-based opportunities for de-implementation strategy development. Methods We used national cancer registry and administrative data from 2016 to 2017 to examine the variation in low-value ADT use across Veterans Health Administration facilities. Using purposive sampling, we selected high- and low-performing sites to conduct 20 urology provider interviews regarding low-value ADT. We coded transcripts into TDF domains and mapped content to the COM-B model to generate a conceptual framework for addressing low-value ADT practices. Results Our interview findings reflected provider perspectives on prescribing ADT as low-value localized prostate cancer treatment, including barriers and facilitators to de-implementing low-value ADT. We characterized providers as belonging in 1 of 3 categories with respect to low-value ADT use: 1) never prescribe 2); willing, under some circumstances, to prescribe: and 3) prescribe as an acceptable treatment option. Provider capability to prescribe low-value ADT depended on their knowledge of localized prostate cancer treatment options (knowledge) coupled with interpersonal skills to engage patients in educational discussion (skills). Provider opportunity to prescribe low-value ADT centered on the environmental resources to inform ADT decisions (e.g., multi-disciplinary review), perceived guideline availability, and social roles and influences regarding ADT practices, such as prior training. Provider motivation involved goals of ADT use, including patient preferences, beliefs in capabilities/professional confidence, and beliefs about the consequences of prescribing or not prescribing ADT. Conclusions Use of the TDF domains and the COM-B model enabled us to conceptualize provider behavior with respect to low-value ADT use and clarify possible areas for intervention to effect de-implementation of low-value ADT prescribing in localized prostate cancer. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03579680

BACKGROUND The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM), a variant of the Delphi Method, was developed to synthesize existing evidence and elicit the clinical judgement of medical experts on the appropriate treatment of specific clinical presentations. Technological advances now allow researchers to conduct expert panels online, offering a cost-effective and convenient alternative to the traditional RAM. For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs recently used a virtual RAM to validate clinical recommendations for de-intensifying routine primary care services. A substantial literature describes and tests various aspects of the traditional RAM in health research, yet we know comparatively less about how researchers implement online expert panels. OBJECTIVE The objectives of this study were twofold: 1) to understand how the virtual RAM process is currently used and reported in health research, and 2) to draw on our experience with the Assessing when to Stop or Scale back Unnecessary RoutinE Services (ASSURES) Study to provide preliminary reporting guidance for researchers to improve the transparency and reproducibility of reporting practices. METHODS The PubMed database was searched to identify studies published between 2009 and 2019 that used a virtual RAM to measure the appropriateness of medical care. Methodological data from each article was abstracted. The following categories were assessed: composition and characteristics of the online expert panels, characteristics of panel procedures, results, and panel satisfaction and engagement. RESULTS Of the 12 studies meeting the eligibility criteria and reviewed, only 42% (5/12) implemented the full RAM process with the remaining studies opting for a partial approach. Among those studies reporting, the median number of participants at first rating was 42. While 92% (11/12) of studies involved clinicians, 50% (6/12) involved multiple stakeholder types. Our review revealed that studies failed to report on critical aspects of the RAM process. For example, no studies reported response rates with the denominator of previous rounds, 42% (5/12) did not provide panelists with feedback between rating periods, 50% (6/12) either did not have or did not report on the panel discussion period, and 25% (3/12) did not report on quality measures to assess aspects of the panel process (e.g., satisfaction with the process). A self-assessment of the ASSURES study revealed implementation features, including panelist engagement and satisfaction, that were not recommended in earlier reviews of the RAM method, but nonetheless proved valuable for making mid-process adjustments. CONCLUSIONS In a post-COVID world, we anticipate that the virtual RAM will be an appealing option for researchers seeking a safe, efficient, and democratic process of expert agreement. Our literature review uncovered inconsistent reporting frameworks and insufficient detail to evaluate study outcomes. We provide preliminary recommendations for reporting that are both timely and important for producing replicable high-quality findings.

Background The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM), a variant of the Delphi Method, was developed to synthesize existing evidence and elicit the clinical judgement of medical experts on the appropriate treatment of specific clinical presentations. Technological advances now allow researchers to conduct expert panels on the internet, offering a cost-effective and convenient alternative to the traditional RAM. For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs recently used a web-based RAM to validate clinical recommendations for de-intensifying routine primary care services. A substantial literature describes and tests various aspects of the traditional RAM in health research; yet we know comparatively less about how researchers implement web-based expert panels. Objective The objectives of this study are twofold: (1) to understand how the web-based RAM process is currently used and reported in health research and (2) to provide preliminary reporting guidance for researchers to improve the transparency and reproducibility of reporting practices. Methods The PubMed database was searched to identify studies published between 2009 and 2019 that used a web-based RAM to measure the appropriateness of medical care. Methodological data from each article were abstracted. The following categories were assessed: composition and characteristics of the web-based expert panels, characteristics of panel procedures, results, and panel satisfaction and engagement. Results Of the 12 studies meeting the eligibility criteria and reviewed, only 42% (5/12) implemented the full RAM process with the remaining studies opting for a partial approach. Among those studies reporting, the median number of participants at first rating was 42. While 92% (11/12) of studies involved clinicians, 50% (6/12) involved multiple stakeholder types. Our review revealed that the studies failed to report on critical aspects of the RAM process. For example, no studies reported response rates with the denominator of previous rounds, 42% (5/12) did not provide panelists with feedback between rating periods, 50% (6/12) either did not have or did not report on the panel discussion period, and 25% (3/12) did not report on quality measures to assess aspects of the panel process (eg, satisfaction with the process). Conclusions Conducting web-based RAM panels will continue to be an appealing option for researchers seeking a safe, efficient, and democratic process of expert agreement. Our literature review uncovered inconsistent reporting frameworks and insufficient detail to evaluate study outcomes. We provide preliminary recommendations for reporting that are both timely and important for producing replicable, high-quality findings. The need for reporting standards is especially critical given that more people may prefer to participate in web-based rather than in-person panels due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Engaging patients and frontline clinicians in re-designing clinical care is essential for improving care delivery in a complex clinical environment. This study sought to assess an innovative user-centered design approach to improving clinical care quality, focusing on the use cases of de-intensifying non-beneficial care within the following areas: (1) de-intensifying diabetes treatment in high-risk patients; (2) stopping screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic patients; and (3) stopping colorectal cancer screening in average-risk, older adults. METHODS: The user-centered design approach, consisting of patient and patient-clinician charrettes (defined as intensive workshops where key stakeholders collaborate to develop creative solutions to a specific problem) and participant surveys, has been described previously. Following the charrettes, we used inductive coding to identify and categorize themes emerging from the de-intensification ideas prioritized by participants as well as facilitator notes and audio recordings from the charrettes. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients participated in the patient design charrettes, generating 134 unique de-intensification ideas and prioritizing 32, which were then distilled into six patient-generated principles of de-intensification by the study team. These principles provided a starting point for a subsequent patient-clinician charrette. In this follow-up charrette, 9 patients who had participated in an earlier patient design charrette collaborated with 7 clinicians to generate 63 potential de-intensification solutions. Six of these potential solutions were developed into multi-faceted, fully operationalized de-intensification strategies. DISCUSSION: The de-intensification strategies that patients and clinicians prioritized and operationalized during the co-design charrette process were detailed and multi-faceted. Each component of a strategy had a rationale based on feasibility, practical considerations, and ways of overcoming barriers. The charrette-based process may be a useful way to engage clinicians and patients in developing the complex and multi-faceted strategies needed to improve care delivery. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-07124-6.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:The TOAD trial (Lancet Oncology 2016) found an overall survival benefit for immediate compared to delayed androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for PSA-relapsed or non-curab...

e17055 Background: Many men with prostate cancer will be exposed to ADT at some point during cancer survivorship. Unfortunately, ADT overuse in low-value scenarios is not uncommon (e.g., monotherapy in localized prostate cancer, biochemically-recurrent non-metastatic disease) resulting in more harms than benefits. We conducted an innovative survey study to unpack ADT overuse to inform behavior change and de-implementation strategies. Methods: Our survey used the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation – Behavior (COM-B) Model. The survey was fielded to the Society of Government Service Urologists listserv in December 2020. We stratified respondents based on their likelihood of stopping ADT monotherapy in the case of a localized prostate cancer patient presenting to their office (yes/probably yes, probably no/no), and characterized Likert scale responses to 7 COM-B statements. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify associations between stopping ADT and COM-B responses across a dichotomized Likert scale of “strongly disagree/disagree/neutral” and “agree/strongly agree.”. Results: Our survey was completed by 84 respondents (13% response rate), with 27% indicating ‘probably no’/‘no’ to stopping low-value ADT monotherapy in the case of a localized prostate cancer patient presenting to their office. Our multivariable model identified 2 COM-B statements significantly associated with lower likelihood of stopping low-value ADT. Conclusions: Using an innovative, behavioral theory-informed survey, we identified that providers less likely to stop low-value ADT had greater concern about patient worry and were more interested in providing ADT recommendations consistent with peers, informing de-implementation strategy selection. Clinical trial information: MCT03579680. [Table: see text]

5090 Background: Accurate survival estimates after prostatectomy are critical for patient counseling, treatment decisions, and trial design. Prior prostate cancer natural history studies may not reflect contemporary outcomes and often lack key endpoints (e.g. incident metastases). For these reasons, we explored population-based recurrence and survival following radical prostatectomy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of men with localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy from 2005-2015 with follow up through 2019 in the Veterans Health Administration. We excluded men with adjuvant radiation or hormonal therapy and defined biochemical recurrence (BCR) as a PSA ≥0.2 ng/mL. We used a validated natural language processing encoded dataset to identify incident metastatic disease. We then estimated actuarial time from surgery to BCR, BCR to metastatic disease, and metastatic disease to death using Kaplan-Meier methods. Results: Of 22,033 men post-prostatectomy, 5,963 (27%) developed BCR, with 5- and 10-year BCR estimates of 21% and 29% (Table). Of 5,963 men with BCR, 678 (11%) developed metastasis, with 5- and 10-year metastasis-free survival from time of BCR of 91% and 77%. Of these 678 men with metastases, 235 died (35%), with 5- and 10-year overall survival of 61% and 47%. Median actuarial overall survival from incident metastatic disease was 8.8 years. Conclusions: On average, we found a man undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer can expect about a 1 in 4 chance of biochemical recurrence. Of men with BCR, we identified a 1 in 10 chance of developing metastases, surviving nearly 9 years after incident metastasis. Both metastasis-free survival after biochemical recurrence and overall survival after developing metastasis appear to have lengthened consistent with a long natural history after prostate cancer surgery. Novel advanced prostate cancer treatments may help explain these findings, though their optimal use warrants further study especially as advanced imaging techniques to characterize recurrence increase. [Table: see text]

BACKGROUND Treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) differ in toxicity, administration, and evidence. In this study, clinical and nonclinical factors associated with the first-line treatment for CRPC in a national delivery system were evaluated. METHODS National electronic laboratory and clinical data from the Veterans Health Administration were used to identify patients with CRPC (ie, rising prostate-specific antigen [PSA] on androgen deprivation) who received abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, or ketoconazole from 2010 through 2017. It was determined whether clinical (eg, PSA) and nonclinical factors (eg, race, facility) were associated with the first-line treatment selection using multilevel, multinomial logistic regression. The average marginal effects (AMEs) were calculated of patient, disease, and facility characteristics on ketoconazole versus more appropriate CRPC therapy. RESULTS There were 4998 patients identified with CRPC who received first-line ketoconazole, docetaxel, abiraterone, or enzalutamide. After adjustment, increasing age was associated with receipt of abiraterone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.07; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.06-1.09) or enzalutamide (aOR, 1.10; 95% CrI, 1.08-1.11) versus docetaxel. Greater preexisting comorbidity was associated with enzalutamide versus abiraterone (aOR, 1.53; 95% CrI, 1.23-1.91). Patients with higher PSA values at the start of treatment were more likely to receive docetaxel than oral agents and less likely to receive ketoconazole than other oral agents. African American men were more likely to receive ketoconazole than abiraterone, enzalutamide, or docetaxel (AME, 2.8%; 95% CI, 0.7%-4.9%). This effect was attenuated when adjusting for facility characteristics (AME, 1.9%; 95% CI, -0.4% to 4.1%). CONCLUSIONS Clinical factors had an expected effect on the first-line treatment selection. Race may be associated with the receipt of a guideline-discordant first-line treatment.

BACKGROUND: A large proportion of deaths and chronic illnesses can be attributed to three modifiable risk factors: tobacco use, overweight/obesity, and physical inactivity. OBJECTIVE: To test whether telephone-based health coaching after completion of a comprehensive health risk assessment (HRA) increases patient activation and enrollment in a prevention program compared to HRA completion alone. DESIGN: Two-arm randomized trial at three sites. SETTING: Primary care clinics at Veterans Affairs facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred seventeen veterans with at least one modifiable risk factor (BMI ≥ 30

BACKGROUND Overtreatment and overtesting expose patients to unnecessary, wasteful, and potentially harmful care. Reducing overtreatment or overtesting that has become ingrained in current clinical practices and is being delivered on a routine basis will require solutions that incorporate a deep understanding of multiple perspectives, particularly those on the front lines of clinical care: patients and their clinicians. Design approaches are a promising and innovative way to incorporate stakeholder needs, desires, and challenges to develop solutions to complex problems. OBJECTIVE This study aimed (1) to engage patients in a design process to develop high-level deintensification strategies for primary care (ie, strategies for scaling back or stopping routine medical services that more recent evidence reveals are not beneficial) and (2) to engage both patients and primary care providers in further co-design to develop and refine the broad deintensification strategies identified in phase 1. METHODS We engaged stakeholders in design charrettes—intensive workshops in which key stakeholders are brought together to develop creative solutions to a specific problem—focused on deintensification of routine overuse in primary care. We conducted the study in 2 phases: a 6.5-hour design charrette with 2 different groups of patients (phase 1) and a subsequent 4-hour charrette with clinicians and a subgroup of phase 1 patients (phase 2). Both phases included surveys and educational presentations related to deintensification. Phase 1 involved several design activities (mind mapping, business origami, and empathy mapping) to help patients gain a deeper understanding of the individuals involved in deintensification. Following that, we asked participants to review hypothetical scenarios where patients, clinicians, or the broader health system context posed a barrier to deintensification and then to brainstorm solutions. The deintensification themes identified in phase 1 were used to guide phase 2. This second phase primarily involved 1 design activity (WhoDo). In this activity, patients and clinicians worked together to develop concrete actions that specific stakeholders could take to support deintensification efforts. This activity included identifying barriers to the actions and approaches to overcoming those barriers. RESULTS A total of 35 patients participated in phase 1, and 9 patients and 7 clinicians participated in phase 2. The analysis of the deintensification strategies and survey data is currently underway. The results are expected to be submitted for publication in early 2020. CONCLUSIONS Health care interventions are frequently developed without input from the people who are most affected. The exclusion of these stakeholders in the design process often influences and limits the impact of the intervention. This study employed design charrettes, guided by a flexible user-centered design model, to bring clinicians and patients with differing backgrounds and with different expectations together to cocreate real-world solutions to the complex issue of deintensifying medical services.

Background Men with prostate cancer are often castrated with long-acting injectable drugs termed androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Although many benefit, ADT is also used in patients with little or nothing to gain. The best ways to stop this practice are unknown, and range from blunt pharmacy restrictions to informed decision-making. This study will refine and pilot two different de-implementation strategies for reducing ADT use among those unlikely to benefit in preparation for a comparative effectiveness trial. Methods/design This innovative mixed methods research program has three aims. Aim 1: To assess preferences and barriers for de-implementation of chemical castration in prostate cancer. Guided by the theoretical domains framework (TDF), urologists and patients from facilities with the highest and lowest castration rates across the VA will be interviewed to identify key preferences and de-implementation barriers for reducing castration as prostate cancer treatment. This qualitative work will inform Aim 2 while gathering rich information for two proposed pilot intervention strategies. Aim 2: To use a discrete choice experiment (DCE), a novel barrier prioritization approach, for de-implementation strategy tailoring. The investigators will conduct national surveys of urologists to prioritize key barriers identified in Aim 1 for stopping incident castration as localized prostate cancer treatment using a DCE experiment design. These quantitative results will identify the most important barriers to be addressed through tailoring of two pilot de-implementation strategies in preparation for Aim 3 piloting. Aim 3: To pilot two tailored de-implementation strategies to reduce castration as localized prostate cancer treatment. Building on findings from Aims 1 and 2, two de-implementation strategies will be piloted. One strategy will focus on formulary restriction at the organizational level and the other on physician/patient informed decision-making at different facilities. Outcomes will include acceptability, feasibility, and scalability in preparation for an effectiveness trial comparing these two widely varying de-implementation strategies. Discussion Our innovative approach to de-implementation strategy development is directly aligned with state-of-the-art complex implementation intervention development and implementation science. This work will broadly advance de-implementation science for low value cancer care, and foster participation in our de-implementation evaluation trial by addressing barriers, facilitators, and concerns through pilot tailoring. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03579680, First Posted July 6, 2018.

Background Overtreatment and overtesting expose patients to unnecessary, wasteful, and potentially harmful care. Reducing overtreatment or overtesting that has become ingrained in current clinical practices and is being delivered on a routine basis will require solutions that incorporate a deep understanding of multiple perspectives, particularly those on the front lines of clinical care: patients and their clinicians. Design approaches are a promising and innovative way to incorporate stakeholder needs, desires, and challenges to develop solutions to complex problems. Objective This study aimed (1) to engage patients in a design process to develop high-level deintensification strategies for primary care (ie, strategies for scaling back or stopping routine medical services that more recent evidence reveals are not beneficial) and (2) to engage both patients and primary care providers in further co-design to develop and refine the broad deintensification strategies identified in phase 1. Methods We engaged stakeholders in design charrettes—intensive workshops in which key stakeholders are brought together to develop creative solutions to a specific problem—focused on deintensification of routine overuse in primary care. We conducted the study in 2 phases: a 6.5-hour design charrette with 2 different groups of patients (phase 1) and a subsequent 4-hour charrette with clinicians and a subgroup of phase 1 patients (phase 2). Both phases included surveys and educational presentations related to deintensification. Phase 1 involved several design activities (mind mapping, business origami, and empathy mapping) to help patients gain a deeper understanding of the individuals involved in deintensification. Following that, we asked participants to review hypothetical scenarios where patients, clinicians, or the broader health system context posed a barrier to deintensification and then to brainstorm solutions. The deintensification themes identified in phase 1 were used to guide phase 2. This second phase primarily involved 1 design activity (WhoDo). In this activity, patients and clinicians worked together to develop concrete actions that specific stakeholders could take to support deintensification efforts. This activity included identifying barriers to the actions and approaches to overcoming those barriers. Results A total of 35 patients participated in phase 1, and 9 patients and 7 clinicians participated in phase 2. The analysis of the deintensification strategies and survey data is currently underway. The results are expected to be submitted for publication in early 2020. Conclusions Health care interventions are frequently developed without input from the people who are most affected. The exclusion of these stakeholders in the design process often influences and limits the impact of the intervention. This study employed design charrettes, guided by a flexible user-centered design model, to bring clinicians and patients with differing backgrounds and with different expectations together to cocreate real-world solutions to the complex issue of deintensifying medical services. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR1-10.2196/15618

BackgroundThe Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) is an effective lifestyle intervention to reduce incidence of type 2 diabetes. However, there are gaps in knowledge about how to implement DPP. The aim of this study was to evaluate implementation of DPP via assessment of a clinical demonstration in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).MethodsA 12-month pragmatic clinical trial compared weight outcomes between the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Prevention Program (VA-DPP) and the usual care MOVE!® weight management program (MOVE!). Eligible participants had a body mass index (BMI) ≥30kg/m2 (or BMI ≥ 25kg/m2 with one obesity-related condition), prediabetes (glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 5.7-6.5% or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) 100-125mg/dL), lived within 60min of their VA site, and had not participated in a weight management program within the last year. Established evaluation and implementation frameworks were used to guide the implementation evaluation. Implementation barriers and facilitators, delivery fidelity, participant satisfaction, and implementation costs were assessed. Using micro-costing methods, costs for assessment of eligibility and scheduling and maintaining adherence per participant, as well as cost of delivery per session, were also assessed.ResultsSeveral barriers and facilitators to Reach, Adoption, Implementation, Effectiveness and Maintenance were identified; barriers related to Reach were the largest challenge encountered by site teams. Fidelity was higher for VA-DPP delivery compared to MOVE! for five of seven domains assessed. Participant satisfaction was high in both programs, but higher in VA-DPP for most items. Based on micro-costing methods, cost of assessment for eligibility was $68/individual assessed, cost of scheduling and maintaining adherence was $328/participant, and cost of delivery was $101/session.ConclusionsMulti-faceted strategies are needed to reach targeted participants and successfully implement DPP. Costs for assessing patients for eligibility need to be carefully considered while still maximizing reach to the targeted population.

Introduction A large proportion of deaths and many illnesses can be attributed to three modifiable risk factors: tobacco use, overweight/obesity, and physical inactivity. Health risk assessments (HRAs) are widely available online but have not been consistently used in healthcare systems to activate patients to participate in prevention programs aimed at improving lifestyle behaviors. Objectives The goal of this study is to test whether adding telephone-based coaching to use of a comprehensive HRA increases at-risk patients' activation and enrollment into a prevention program compared to HRA use alone. Methods Participants were randomized to either complete an HRA alone or in conjunction with a telephone coaching intervention. To be eligible Veterans had to have at least one modifiable risk factor (current smoker, overweight/obese, or physically inactive). The primary outcome is enrollment and participation in a prevention program by 6 months. Secondary outcomes include change in a Patient Activation Measure and Framingham Risk Score. Discussion This study is the first to test a web-based health risk assessment coupled with a health coaching intervention within a large healthcare system. Results from this study will help the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implement its national plan to include comprehensive health risk assessments as a tool to engage Veterans in prevention. The results will also inform health systems outside VHA who seek to implement Medicare's advisement that health risk assessment become a mandatory component of care under the Affordable Care Act.

Results 347 published articles cited the CFIR, with an average of growth rate of four additional articles per week; fiftyone were original research, protocols, or syntheses. Recommendations were extracted from these articles and used to inform updates for CFIR V2. Refinements will include improved clarity in definitions for existing constructs, addition of new constructs, and better framing of the purpose and uses of CFIR. The CFIR website was significantly redesigned with the addition of new tools and resources including: 1) an interview guide creation tool; 2) links to a periodically updated bibliography of articles applying the CFIR; 3) two published quantitative measures related to organizational change mapped to CFIR constructs; 4) in-depth guidance on how to apply the CFIR; and 5) plans for the future. A demonstration of the publically available website will be provided along with the URL.