Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Hypertension (HTN) control among Blacks in the USA has become a major public health challenge. Barriers to HTN control exist at multiple levels including patient, physician, and the health system. Patients also encounter significant community-level barriers, such as poor linkage to social services that impact health (unstable housing, food access, transportation). We describe a multi-component needs assessment to inform the development, implementation, and evaluation of a program to improve HTN management within a large healthcare system in New York City (NYC). METHODS:Guided by the Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) frameworks, data will be collected from four main sources: (1) quantitative surveys with health systems leadership, providers, and staff and with community-based organizations (CBOs) and faith-based organizations (FBOs); (2) qualitative interviews and focus groups with health systems leadership, providers, and staff and with CBOs and FBOs; (3) NYC Community Health Survey (CHS); and (4) New York University (NYU) Health system Epic Electronic Health Record (EHR) system. The data sources will allow for triangulation and synthesis of findings. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Findings from this comprehensive needs assessment will inform the development of a clinic-community-based practice facilitation program utilizing three multi-level evidence-based interventions (nurse case management, remote blood pressure (BP) monitoring, and social determinants of health (SDoH) support) integrated as a community-clinic linkage model for improved HTN control in Black patients. Integration of stakeholders' priorities, perspectives, and practices into the development of the program will improve adoption, sustainability, and the potential for scale-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:NCT05208450; registered on January 26, 2022.

OBJECTIVE:To describe the NHLBI sponsored Disparities Elimination through Coordinated Interventions to Prevent and Control Heart and Lung Disease (DECIPHeR) Alliance to support late-stage implementation research aimed at reducing disparities in communities with high burdens of cardiovascular and/or pulmonary disease. STUDY SETTING/METHODS:NHBLI funded seven DECIPHeR studies and a Coordinating Center. Projects target high-risk diverse populations including racial and ethnic minorities, urban, rural and low-income communities, disadvantaged children, and persons with serious mental illness. Two projects address multiple cardiovascular risk factors, three focus on hypertension, one on tobacco use, and one on pediatric asthma. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:The initial phase supports planning activities for sustainable uptake of evidence-based interventions in targeted communities. The second phase tests late-stage evidence-based implementation strategies. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS/METHODS:not applicable. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS/RESULTS:We provide an overview of the DECIPHeR Alliance and individual study designs, populations and settings, implementation strategies, interventions and outcomes. We describe the Alliance's organizational structure, designed to promote cross-center partnership and collaboration. CONCLUSIONS:The DECIPHeR Alliance represents an ambitious national effort to develop sustainable implementation of interventions to achieve cardiovascular and pulmonary health equity.

BACKGROUND:Chinese immigrants bear a high diabetes burden and face significant barriers to accessing diabetes self-management education (DSME) and counseling programs. OBJECTIVE:The goal of this study was to examine the feasibility and acceptability and to pilot test the potential efficacy of a social media-based DSME intervention among low-income Chinese immigrants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in New York City. METHODS:), self-efficacy, dietary intake, and physical activity, were measured at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Descriptive statistics and paired 2-sided t tests were used to summarize the baseline characteristics and changes before and after the intervention. RESULTS:level was 7.3% (SD 1.3%), and this level declined by 0.5% (95% CI -0.8% to -0.2%; P=.003) at 6 months. The mean satisfaction score was 9.9 (SD 0.6) out of 10, indicating a high level of satisfaction with the program. All strongly agreed or agreed that they preferred this video-based DSME over face-to-face visits. Compared to baseline, there were significant improvements in self-efficacy, dietary, and physical activity behaviors at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS:This pilot study demonstrated that a social media-based DSME intervention is feasible, acceptable, and potentially efficacious in a low-income Chinese immigrant population with T2D. Future studies need to examine the efficacy in an adequately powered clinical trial.

BACKGROUND:Evidence-based task-strengthening strategies for hypertension (HTN) control (TASSH) are not readily available for patients living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa where the dual burden of HTN and HIV remains high. We are conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of practice facilitation versus a self-directed control (i.e., receipt of TASSH with no practice facilitation) in reducing blood pressure and increasing the adoption of task-strengthening strategies for HTN control within HIV clinics in Nigeria. Prior to implementing the trial, we conducted formative research to identify factors that may influence the integration of TASSH within HIV clinics in Nigeria. METHODS:This mixed-methods study was conducted with purposively selected healthcare providers at 29 HIV clinics, followed by a 1-day stakeholder meeting with 19 representatives of HIV clinics. We collected quantitative practice assessment data using two instruments: (a) an adapted Service Availability and Readiness Assessment (SARA) tool to assess the capacity of the clinic to manage NCDs and (b) Implementation Climate Scale to assess the degree to which there is a strategic organizational climate supportive of the evidence-based practice implementation. The quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and measures of scale reliability. We also used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to thematically analyze qualitative data generated and relevant to the aims of this study. RESULTS:Across the 29 clinics surveyed, the focus on TASSH (mean=1.77 (SD=0.59)) and educational support (mean=1.32 (SD=0.68)) subscales demonstrated the highest mean score, with good-excellent internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.84 to 0.96). Within the five CFIR domains explored, the major facilitators of the intervention included relative advantage of TASSH compared to current practice, compatibility with clinic organizational structures, support of patients' needs, and intervention alignment with national guidelines. Barriers included the perceived complexity of TASSH, weak referral network and patient tracking mechanism within the clinics, and limited resources and diagnostic equipment for HTN. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Optimizing healthcare workers' implementation of evidence-based TASSH within HIV clinics requires attention to both the implementation climate and contextual factors likely to influence adoption and long-term sustainability. These findings have implications for the development of effective practice facilitation strategies to further improve the delivery and integration of TASSH within HIV clinics in Nigeria. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04704336.

BACKGROUND:Several tools to improve reporting of implementation studies for evidence-based decision making have been created; however, no tool for critical appraisal of implementation outcomes exists. Researchers, practitioners, and policy makers lack tools to support the concurrent synthesis and critical assessment of outcomes for implementation research. Our objectives were to develop a comprehensive tool to (1) describe studies focused on implementation that use qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed methodologies and (2) assess risk of bias of implementation outcomes. METHODS:A hybrid consensus-building approach combining Delphi Group and Nominal Group techniques (NGT) was modeled after comparative methodologies for developing health research reporting guidelines and critical appraisal tools. First, an online modified NGT occurred among a small expert panel (n = 5), consisting of literature review, item generation, round robin with clarification, application of the tool to various study types, voting, and discussion. This was followed by a larger e-consensus meeting and modified Delphi process with implementers and implementation scientists (n = 32). New elements and elements of various existing tools, frameworks, and taxonomies were combined to produce the ASSESS tool. RESULTS:The 24-item tool is applicable to a broad range of study designs employed in implementation science, including qualitative studies, randomized-control trials, non-randomized quantitative studies, and mixed methods studies. Two key features are a section for assessing bias of the implementation outcomes and sections for describing the implementation strategy and intervention implemented. An accompanying explanation and elaboration document that identifies and describes each of the items, explains the rationale, and provides examples of reporting and appraising practice, as well as templates to allow synthesis of extracted data across studies and an instructional video, has been prepared. CONCLUSIONS:The comprehensive, adaptable tool to support both reporting and critical appraisal of implementation science studies including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods assessment of intervention and implementation outcomes has been developed. This tool can be applied to a methodologically diverse and growing body of implementation science literature to support reviews or meta-analyses that inform evidence-based decision-making regarding processes and strategies for implementation.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) works to improve the health of people nationwide by making evidence-based recommendations for preventive services. Patient-centered care is a core value in US health care. Shared decision-making (SDM), in which patients and clinicians make health decisions together, ensures patients' rights to be informed and involved in preventive care decisions and that these decisions are patient-centered. SDM has a role across the spectrum of USPSTF recommendations. For A or B recommendations (judged by the USPSTF to have high or moderate certainty of a moderate or substantial net benefit at the population level), SDM allows individual patients to decide whether to accept such services based on their personal values and preferences. For C recommendations (indicating at least moderate certainty of a small net benefit at the population level), SDM is critical for individual patients to decide whether the net benefit for them is worthwhile. For D recommendations (reflecting at least moderate certainty of a zero or negative net benefit) or I statements (low certainty of net benefit), clinicians should be prepared to discuss these services if patients ask. More evidence is needed to determine if, in addition to promoting patient-centeredness, SDM reduces inequities in preventive care, as well as to define new strategies to find time for discussion of preventive services in primary care.

Hypertension is an established risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Although controlling blood pressure reduces cardiovascular and stroke mortality and target organ damage, poor blood pressure control remains a clinical and public health challenge. Furthermore, racial and ethnic disparities in the outcomes of hypertension are well documented. In October of 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Control Hypertension. The Call to Action emphasized, among other priorities, the need to eliminate disparities in the treatment and control of high blood pressure and to address social determinants as root causes of inequities in blood pressure control and treatment. In support of the goals set in the Call to Action, this review summarizes contemporary research on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in hypertension and blood pressure control; describes interventions and policies that have improved blood pressure control in minoritized populations by addressing the social determinants of health; and proposes next steps for achieving equity in hypertension and blood pressure control.

Hypertension treatment and control prevent more cardiovascular events than management of other modifiable risk factors. Although the age-adjusted proportion of US adults with controlled blood pressure (BP) defined as <140/90 mm Hg, improved from 31.8% in 1999-2000 to 48.5% in 2007-2008, it remained stable through 2013-2014 and declined to 43.7% in 2017-2018. To address the rapid decline in hypertension control, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a virtual workshop with multidisciplinary national experts. Also, the group sought to identify opportunities to reverse the adverse trend and further improve hypertension control. The workshop immediately preceded the Surgeon General's Call to Action to Control Hypertension, which recognized a stagnation in progress with hypertension control. The presentations and discussions included potential reasons for the decline and challenges in hypertension control, possible "big ideas," and multisector approaches that could reverse the current trend while addressing knowledge gaps and research priorities. The broad set of "big ideas" was comprised of various activities that may improve hypertension control, including: interventions to engage patients, promotion of self-measured BP monitoring with clinical support, supporting team-based care, implementing telehealth, enhancing community-clinical linkages, advancing precision population health, developing tailored public health messaging, simplifying hypertension treatment, using process and outcomes quality metrics to foster accountability and efficiency, improving access to high-quality health care, addressing social determinants of health, supporting cardiovascular public health and research, and lowering financial barriers to hypertension control.