Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Policymakers need research-informed guidance on leveraging national government funding to promote evidence-based practice (EBP) implementation, however empirical studies of policy financing strategies in implementation science remain limited. Major investments are already being made. Starting in 2012, the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) funded state substance use service agencies to implement EBPs for youth substance use. We examined 19 states funded to implement the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA), an exemplar EBP selected by most states. Using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) Framework, we sought to explain state-level variation in A-CRA reach (defined as the proportion of A-CRA certified providers) and to identify policy implications for improving EBP financing strategies. METHODS:We conducted an explanatory sequential mixed-method (QUAN→QUAL) comparative case study, treating each state as a case. States were categorized as achieving high, medium, and low reach during their grant periods using A-CRA certification records and state demographic data. We then synthesized available data (i.e., interviews with 33 state agency administrators, grant administrative records, other documents describing A-CRA implementation) to summarize grant activities completed and their quality, and factors potentially influencing reach in each state. Finally, we compared and contrasted state cases to identify policy implications through pattern matching techniques. RESULTS:We characterized the 19 states' reach levels as high (n = 7), medium (n = 5), and low (n = 7) and identified an average of 5 grant-related activities completed per state; the most common being A-CRA training to treatment organizations. Six states were case anomalies (e.g., low quantity and quality of activities, while achieving high reach). Most notably, we found that high-reach states had more specific, intentional, and explicit A-CRA implementation requirements for treatment organizations than did low- and medium-reach states. States were also more successful in achieving A-CRA reach when they reported proactively addressing implementation barriers (e.g., provider turnover, state leadership buy-in and support). CONCLUSIONS:Our mixed-method comparative case study advances policy-focused implementation research related to EBP financing strategies, demonstrating how examination of large-scale real-world funding initiatives can produce generalizable lessons. Our findings have implications for how future funding initiatives can facilitate EBP delivery to maximize reach.

BACKGROUND:Opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programs provide naloxone kits and training on recognizing and responding to opioid overdoses. While there are some early adopters of college campus OEND programs, this important setting remains underutilized. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:We conducted research on student-level perceptions of the reach, relevance, and fit of routine OEND implementation on a college campus in New York City. METHODS:Semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews (n = 40) were completed across three student groups: (i) those who were invited to and attended an OEND training, and opted to take a free naloxone kit (n = 24); (ii) those who were invited, but did not attend a training (n = 13); and (iii) those who were invited and attended a training, but did not take a kit (n = 3). We employed a framework-driven pragmatic qualitative approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS:Our findings, synthesized across groups, were: (i) students were generally receptive to OEND program implementation on campuses broadly including their own, but perceived it as more relevant to the outer setting surrounding campus, which universities need to engage; (ii) beyond OEND programs, students expressed wanting better access to broader substance use and mental health services; and (iii) students described the need for improved university communications about its commitments to OEND program implementation to promote relevance and reach. CONCLUSIONS:This study provides in-depth understanding of student-level perceptions around implementing campus OEND programs and identifies opportunities to improve future implementation and sustainability.

BackgroundCommunity health workers (CHW) can perform unique functions to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based interventions for infection-related cancer prevention and control, and alleviate minoritized and immigration-related disparities.PurposeWe describe the implementation evaluation of three CHW-delivered infection-related cancer programs focused on Asian American (AA) communities in New York City: 1) a H. pylori treatment adherence program for Chinese and Korean Americans; 2) a HPV screening program for Muslim Americans; and 3) a hepatitis B screening, linkage to care, and treatment program for AA and other priority communities.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured key informant interviews with multi-level stakeholders from the programs.ResultsLessons learned include the importance of: 1) sustaining engagement and buy-in from implementation partners; 2) prioritizing recipient- and deliverer-centeredness; 3) fostering program flexibility to accommodate multiple implementation settings and to meet dynamic community resources and priorities; and 4) understanding interoperability between the CHW-delivered intervention and the inner setting for effective program implementation.ConclusionsThese findings can inform other efforts to implement CHW-delivered community-clinical cancer programs for AA and other underserved communities to advance health equity.

BACKGROUND:In several recent articles, authors have called for aligning the fields of implementation and improvement science. In this paper, we call for implementation science to also align with improvement practice. Multiple implementation scholars have highlighted the importance of designing implementation strategies to fit the existing culture, infrastructure, and practice of a healthcare system. Worldwide, healthcare systems are adopting improvement models as their primary approach to improving healthcare delivery and outcomes. The prevalence of improvement models raises the question of how implementation scientists might best align their efforts with healthcare systems' existing improvement infrastructure and practice. MAIN BODY/METHODS:We describe three challenges and five benefits to aligning implementation science and improvement practice. Challenges include (1) use of different models, terminology, and methods, (2) a focus on generalizable versus local knowledge, and (3) limited evidence in support of the effectiveness of improvement tools and methods. We contend that implementation science needs to move beyond these challenges and work toward greater alignment with improvement practice. Aligning with improvement practice would benefit implementation science by (1) strengthening research/practice partnerships, (2) fostering local ownership of implementation, (3) generating practice-based evidence, (4) developing context-specific implementation strategies, and (5) building practice-level capacity to implement interventions and improve care. Each of these potential benefits is illustrated in a case study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:To effectively integrate evidence-based interventions into routine practice, implementation scientists need to align their efforts with the improvement culture and practice that is driving change within healthcare systems worldwide. This paper provides concrete examples of how researchers have aligned implementation science with improvement practice across five implementation projects.

BACKGROUND:The United States opioid epidemic's reach is expanding. Rapidly scaling opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programs is essential within a multipronged public health response. Universities offer infrastructure with potential to support routine, widespread OEND program implementation among adolescents and young adults nationally, a priority population who could disseminate to broader networks and geographic communities. This important setting is underutilized, and critical gaps remain in understanding university-based OEND program adoption/implementation. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews (n = 21) among a purposively selected national sample of college health administrators to understand their perceptions of barriers/facilitators of implementing OEND programs at their universities and among universities nationally. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided data collection and inductive-deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS:Unexpected student opioid overdoses and deaths catalyzed university administration to implement OEND programming. Absent the urgency induced by such events and in contrast to the incidental exposure they implicate, administrations perceived the prevalence of opioid misuse within their student population as too low to justify OEND program implementation. For some, this reluctance to proactively implement OEND programming was heightened by a desire to avoid political controversy, related to stigma surrounding harm reduction. Participants described the need for campus partners to collaboratively navigate university administrations' inaction/opposition, and ultimately, spearhead implementation, often with external collaborators. Key roles among campus and external collaborators were identified, including (a) allowing students to access existing OEND programming prior to obtaining administrative approval for university-based implementation; (b) compiling data and anecdotal evidence to understand the campus substance use environment and sharing that information with administration to establish program need; (c) overcoming stigma and legal complexity of harm reduction programming; (d) overcoming funding/resource constraints and building capacity to sustain OEND programming. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings underscore complexities of university-based OEND program implementation while providing actionable insights to support its national scale-up. Building on identified distinctions between universities in the process of implementing OEND programming and those without intention to implement, future research should identify OEND programming implementation phase among universities nationally, advance understanding of implementation determinants and strategies distinguishing each phase, and establish best practices for OEND program implementation.

We characterize within-city life expectancy gaps and their correlation with social and environmental characteristics in 948 US cities. Life expectancy estimates were drawn from the US Life Expectancy Estimation Program. City life expectancy gaps were calculated by subtracting the lowest tract-level life expectancy estimate from the highest for each city. Correlations were established using Spearman's correlation coefficient. The average city-level life expectancy gap in our sample was 11.8 years. Life expectancy gaps were larger in cities with lower average life expectancy and were evident across the USA. Life expectancy gaps of a decade were seen even in smaller cities and in high life expectancy cities. Life expectancy gaps were most strongly correlated with racialized residential segregation, children in poverty, and household income. Significant between-neighborhood gaps in life expectancy exist across US cities. Life expectancy gaps present a compelling target for establishing robust health equity goals.