Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Cancer deaths in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) will nearly double by 2040. Available evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for cancer prevention and early detection can reduce cancer-related mortality, yet there is a lack of evidence on effectively scaling these EBIs in LMIC settings. METHODS:We conducted a scoping review to identify published literature from six databases between 2012 and 2022 that described efforts for scaling cancer prevention and early detection EBIs in LMICs. Included studies met one of two definitions of scale-up: (1) deliberate efforts to increase the impact of effective intervention to benefit more people or (2) an intervention shown to be efficacious on a small scale expanded under real-world conditions to reach a greater proportion of eligible population. Study characteristics, including EBIs, implementation strategies, and outcomes used, were summarized using frameworks from the field of implementation science. RESULTS:This search yielded 3,076 abstracts, with 24 studies eligible for inclusion. Included studies focused on a number of cancer sites including cervical (67%), breast (13%), breast and cervical (13%), liver (4%), and colon (4%). Commonly reported scale-up strategies included developing stakeholder inter-relationships, training and education, and changing infrastructure. Barriers to scale-up were reported at individual, health facility, and community levels. Few studies reported applying conceptual frameworks to guide strategy selection and evaluation. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Although there were relatively few published reports, this scoping review offers insight into the approaches used by LMICs to scale up cancer EBIs, including common strategies and barriers. More importantly, it illustrates the urgent need to fill gaps in research to guide best practices for bringing the implementation of cancer EBIs to scale in LMICs.

BACKGROUND:Permanent supportive housing (PSH)-subsidized housing paired with support services such as case management-is a key part of national strategic plans to end homelessness. PSH tenants face high overdose risk due to a confluence of individual and environmental risk factors, yet little research has examined overdose prevention in PSH. METHODS:We describe the protocol for a hybrid type 3 stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) of overdose prevention practice implementation in PSH. We adapted evidence-based overdose prevention practices and implementation strategies for PSH using input from stakeholder focus groups. The trial will include 20 PSH buildings (with building size ranging from 20 to over 150 tenants) across New York City and New York's Capital Region. Buildings will be randomized to one of four 6-month intervention waves during which they will receive a package of implementation support including training in using a PSH Overdose Prevention (POP) Toolkit, time-limited practice facilitation, and learning collaboratives delivered to staff and tenant implementation champions appointed by each building. The primary outcome is building-level fidelity to a defined list of overdose prevention practices. Secondary and exploratory implementation and effectiveness outcomes will be examined using PSH staff and tenant survey questionnaires, and analysis of tenant Medicaid data. We will explore factors related to implementation success, including barriers and facilitators, using qualitative interviews with key stakeholders. The project is being conducted through an academic-community partnership, and an Advisory Board including PSH tenants and other key stakeholders will be engaged in all stages of the project. DISCUSSION:We describe the protocol for a hybrid type 3 stepped-wedge cluster RCT of overdose prevention practice implementation in PSH. This study will be the first controlled trial of overdose prevention implementation in PSH settings. The research will make a significant impact by testing and informing future implementation strategies to prevent overdose for a population at particularly high risk for overdose mortality. Findings from this PSH-focused research are expected to be broadly applicable to other housing settings and settings serving people experiencing homelessness. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05786222 , registered 27 March 2023.

BACKGROUND:There are well-established guidelines for treating hypertension (HTN), yet only half of patients with HTN meet the defined target of < 140/90. Team-based care (TBC) is an evidence-based strategy for improving blood pressure (BP) management and control. TBC is defined as the provision of health services by at least two health professionals "who work collaboratively with patients and their caregivers to accomplish shared goals to achieve coordinated, high-quality care". However, primary care practices experience challenges to implementing TBC principles and care processes; these are more pronounced in small independent practice settings (SIPs). Practice facilitation (PF) is an implementation strategy that may overcome barriers to adopting evidence-based TBC to improve HTN management in SIPs. METHODS:Using a stepped wedge randomized controlled trial design, we will test the effect of PF on the adoption of TBC to improve HTN management in small practices (< 5 FTE clinicians) in New York City, and the impact on BP control compared with usual care. We will enroll 90 SIPs and randomize them into one of three 12-month intervention waves. Practice facilitators will support SIPs to adopt TBC principles to improve implementation of five HTN management strategies (i.e., panel management, population health, measuring BP, supporting medication adherence, self-management). The primary outcome is the adoption of TBC for HTN management measured at baseline and 12 months. Secondary outcomes include the rate of BP control and sustainability of TBC and BP outcomes at 18 months. Aggregated data on BP measures are collected every 6 months in all clusters so that each cluster provides data points in both the control and intervention conditions. Using a mixed methods approach, we will also explore factors that influence the effectiveness of PF at the organization and team level. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study will provide much-needed guidance on how to optimize adoption and sustainability of TBC in independent primary care settings to reduce the burden of disease related to suboptimal BP control and advance understanding of how facilitation works to improve implementation of evidence-based interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT05413252 .

BACKGROUND:Only half of patients with hypertension have adequately controlled blood pressure. Clinical decision support (CDS) has the potential to overcome barriers to delivering guideline-recommended care and improve hypertension management. However, optimal strategies for scaling CDS have not been well established, particularly in small, independent primary care practices which often lack the resources to effectively change practice routines. Practice facilitation is an implementation strategy that has been shown to support process changes. Our objective is to evaluate whether practice facilitation provided with hypertension-focused CDS can lead to improvements in blood pressure control for patients seen in small primary care practices. METHODS/DESIGN/METHODS:We will conduct a cluster randomized control trial to compare the effect of hypertension-focused CDS plus practice facilitation on BP control, as compared to CDS alone. The practice facilitation intervention will include an initial training in the CDS and a review of current guidelines along with follow-up for coaching and integration support. We will randomize 46 small primary care practices in New York City who use the same electronic health record vendor to intervention or control. All patients with hypertension seen at these practices will be included in the evaluation. We will also assess implementation of CDS in all practices and practice facilitation in the intervention group. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study will inform optimal implementation of CDS into small primary care practices, where much of care delivery occurs in the U.S. Additionally, our assessment of barriers and facilitators to implementation will support future scaling of the intervention. CLINICALTRIALS/RESULTS:gov Identifier: NCT05588466.

Smoke-free housing policies are intended to reduce the deleterious health effects of secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure, but there is limited evidence regarding their health impacts. We examined associations between implementation of a federal smoke-free housing rule by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) and pediatric Medicaid claims for asthma, lower respiratory infections (LRIs), and upper respiratory infections (URIs) in the early post-policy period. We used geocoded address data to match children living in tax lots with NYCHA buildings (exposed to policy) to children living in lots with other subsidized housing (unexposed to policy). We constructed longitudinal difference-in-differences models to assess relative changes in monthly rates of claims between November 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019 (policy introduction was July 30, 2018). We also examined effect modification by baseline age group (0-2, 3-6, 7-15). In NYC, introduction of a smoke-free policy was not associated with lower rates of Medicaid claims for any outcomes in the early post-policy period. Exposure to the smoke-free policy was associated with slightly higher than expected rates of outpatient URI claims (IRR=1.05, 95% CI=1.01, 1.08), a result most pronounced among children ages 3-6. Ongoing monitoring is essential to understanding long-term health impacts of smoke-free housing policies.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:In July 2018, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development passed a rule requiring public housing authorities to implement smoke-free housing (SFH) policies. We measured secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure immediately before, and repeatedly up to 36 months post-SFH policy implementation in a purposeful sample of 21 New York City (NYC) high-rise buildings (>15 floors): 10 NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA) buildings subject to the policy and 11 privately managed buildings in which most residents received housing vouchers (herein 'Section 8'). METHODS:We invited participants from non-smoking households (NYCHA n=157, Section 8 n=118) to enroll into a longitudinal air monitoring study, measuring (1) nicotine concentration with passive, bi-sulfate-coated filters, and (2) particulate matter (PM2.5) with low-cost particle sensors. We also measured nicotine concentrations and counted cigarette butts in common areas (n=91 stairwells and hallways). We repeated air monitoring sessions in households and common areas every 6 months, totaling six post-policy sessions. RESULTS:After three years, we observed larger declines in nicotine concentration in NYCHA hallways than in Section 8, [difference-in-difference (DID) = -1.92 µg/m 3 (95% CI -2.98, -0.87), p=0.001]. In stairwells, nicotine concentration declines were larger in NYCHA buildings, but the differences were not statistically significant [DID= -1.10 µg/m 3 (95% CI -2.40, 0.18), p=0.089]. In households, there was no differential change in nicotine concentration (p=0.093) or in PM2.5 levels (p=0.385). CONCLUSIONS:Nicotine concentration reductions in NYCHA common areas over three years may be attributable to the SFH policy, reflecting its gradual implementation over this time. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Continued air monitoring over multiple years has demonstrated that SHS exposure may be declining more rapidly in NYCHA common areas as a result of SFH policy adherence. This may have positive implications for improved health outcomes among those living in public housing, but additional tracking of air quality and studies of health outcomes are needed. Ongoing efforts by NYCHA to integrate the SFH policy into wider healthier-homes initiatives may increase policy compliance.

BACKGROUND:African American and Hispanic populations have been affected disproportionately by COVID-19. Reasons are multifactorial and include social and structural determinants of health. During the onset and height of the pandemic, evidence suggested decreased access to SARS CoV-2 testing. In 2020, the National Institutes of Health launched the Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx)- Underserved Populations initiative to improve SARS CoV-2 testing in underserved communities. In this study, we explored attitudes, experiences, and barriers to SARS CoV-2 testing and vaccination among New York City public housing residents. METHODS:Between December 2020 and March 2021, we conducted 9 virtual focus groups among 36 low-income minority residents living in New York City public housing. RESULTS:Among residents reporting a prior SARS CoV-2 test, main reasons for testing were to prepare for a medical procedure or because of a high-risk exposure. Barriers to testing included fear of discomfort from the nasal swab, fear of exposure to COVID-19 while traveling to get tested, concerns about the consequences of testing positive and the belief that testing was not necessary. Residents reported a mistrust of information sources and the health care system in general; they depended more on "word of mouth" for information. The major barrier to vaccination was lack of trust in vaccine safety. Residents endorsed more convenient testing, onsite testing at residential buildings, and home self-test kits. Residents also emphasized the need for language-concordant information sharing and for information to come from "people who look like [them] and come from the same background as [them]". CONCLUSIONS:Barriers to SARS CoV-2 testing and vaccination centered on themes of a lack of accurate information, fear, mistrust, safety, and convenience. Resident-endorsed strategies to increase testing include making testing easier to access either through home or onsite testing locations. Education and information sharing by trusted members of the community are important tools to combat misinformation and build trust.

BACKGROUND:Guidelines for managing and preventing chronic disease tend to be well-known. Yet, translation of this evidence into practice is inconsistent. We identify a combination of factors that are connected to guideline concordant delivery of evidence-informed chronic disease care in primary care. METHODS:Cross-sectional observational study; purposively selected 22 practices to vary on size, ownership and geographic location, using National Quality Forum metrics to ensure practices had a ≥ 70% quality level for at least 2 of the following: aspirin use in high-risk individuals, blood pressure control, cholesterol and diabetes management. Interviewed 2 professionals (eg, medical director, practice manager) per practice (n = 44) to understand staffing and clinical operations. Analyzed data using an iterative and inductive approach. RESULTS:Community Health Centers (CHCs) employed interdisciplinary clinical teams that included a variety of professionals as compared with hospital-health systems (HHS) and clinician-owned practices. Despite this difference, practice members consistently reported a number of functions that may be connected to clinical chronic care quality, including: having engaged leadership; a culture of teamwork; engaging in team-based care; using data to inform quality improvement; empaneling patients; and managing the care of patient panels, with a focus on continuity and comprehensiveness, as well as having a commitment to the community. CONCLUSIONS:There are mutable organizational attributes connected-guideline concordant chronic disease care in primary care. Research and policy reform are needed to promote and study how to achieve widespread adoption of these functions and organizational attributes that may be central to achieving equity and improving chronic disease prevention.

BACKGROUND:Housing insecurity is prevalent among emergency department (ED) patients. Despite a surge of interest in screening for patients' social needs including housing insecurity, little research has examined ED social needs interventions. We worked together with government and community partners to develop and pilot test a homelessness prevention intervention targeted to ED patients with drug or unhealthy alcohol use. METHODS:We approached randomly sampled patients at an urban public hospital ED, May to August 2019. Adult patients were eligible if they were medically stable, not incarcerated, spoke English, had unhealthy alcohol or any drug use, and were not currently homeless but screened positive for risk of future homelessness using a previously developed risk screening tool. Participants received a three-part intervention: (1) brief counseling and referral to treatment for substance use delivered through a preexisting ED program; (2) referral to Homebase, an evidence-based community homelessness prevention program; and (3) up to three troubleshooting phone calls by study staff. Participants completed surveys at baseline and 6 months. RESULTS:Of 2183 patients screened, 51 were eligible and 40 (78.4%) participated; one later withdrew, leaving 39 participants. Participants were diverse in age, gender, race, and ethnicity. Of the 32 participants reached at 6 months, most said it was very or extremely helpful to talk to someone about their housing situation (n = 23, 71.9%) at the baseline ED visit. Thirteen (40.6%) said their housing situation had improved in the past 6 months and 16 (50.0%) said it had not changed. Twenty participants (62.5%) had made contact with a Homebase office. Participants shared ideas of how to improve the intervention. CONCLUSIONS:This pilot intervention was feasible and well received by participants though it required a large amount of screening to identify potentially eligible patients. Our findings will inform a larger future trial and may be informative for others seeking to develop similar interventions.