Beyond Content: Cultural Perspectives on Using the Internet to Deliver a Sexual Health Intervention to American Indian Youth

Cultural and Contextual Adaptation of Digital Health Interventions: Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Emerging evidence suggests that positive impacts can be generated when digital health interventions are designed to be responsive to the cultural and socioeconomic context of their intended audiences.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review aims to synthesize the literature about the cultural adaptation of digital health interventions. It examines how concepts of culture and context feature in design and development processes, including the methods, models, and content of these interventions, with the aim of helping researchers to make informed decisions about how to approach cultural adaptation in digital health.

METHODS

Literature searches for this narrative review were conducted across 4 databases. Following full-text article screening by 2 authors, 16 studies of interventions predominantly focused on the self-management of health were selected based on their detailed focus on the process of cultural adaptation. Key considerations for cultural adaptation were identified and synthesized through a qualitative narrative approach, enabling an integrative and in-depth understanding of cultural adaptation.

RESULTS

The literature demonstrates varying approaches and levels of cultural adaptation across stages of intervention development, involving considerations such as the research ethos orienting researchers, the methodologies and models used, and the resultant content adaptations. In relation to the latter, culturally appropriate and accessible user interface design and translation can be seen as particularly important in shaping the level of adaptation.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimizing cultural adaptation involves linking culture with other contextual factors such as economic conditions and social systems to ensure accessibility and the sustained use of digital health interventions. Culturally humble approaches that use the involvement of a broad range of participants, experts, and other stakeholders are demonstrated to spark vital insights for content development, implementation, and evaluation.

"Your Package Could Not Be Delivered": The State of Digital HIV Intervention Implementation in the US

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite continuous innovations and federal investment to create digital interventions addressing the HIV prevention and care continua, these interventions have not reached people in the U.S. at scale. This article reviews what is known about U.S. implementation of digital HIV interventions and presents a strategy to cross the research-to-practice chasm for these types of interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

We conducted a narrative review of U.S.-based original research on implementation of digital HIV interventions and identified few studies reporting on implementation determinants, strategies, processes, or outcomes, particularly outside the context of effectiveness trials. To supplement the literature, in 2023, we surveyed 47 investigators representing 64 unique interventions about their experiences with implementation after their research trials. Respondents placed high importance on intervention implementation, but major barriers included lack of funding and clear implementation models, technology costs, and difficulty identifying partners equipped to deliver digital interventions. They felt that responsibility for implementation should be shared between intervention developers, deliverers (e.g., clinics), and a government entity. If an implementation center were to exist, most respondents wanted to be available for guidance or technical assistance but largely wanted less involvement. Numerous evidence-based, effective digital interventions exist to address HIV prevention and care. However, they remain "on the shelf" absent a concrete and sustainable model for real-world dissemination and implementation. Based on our findings, we call for the creation of national implementation centers, analogous to those in other health systems, to facilitate digital HIV intervention delivery and accelerate progress toward ending the U.S. epidemic.

The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review

OBJECTIVES

The concept of living labs as a research method to enhance participation of end-users in the development and implementation process of an innovation, gained increasing attention over the past decade. A living lab can be characterised by five key components: user-centric, cocreation, real-life context, test innovation and open innovation. The purpose of this integrative literature review was to summarise the literature on the relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations.

METHODS

An integrative literature review searching PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cinahl databases between January 2000 and December 2019. Studies were included when a living lab approach was used to implement innovations in healthcare and implementation outcomes were reported. Included studies evaluated at least one of the following implementation outcomes: acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration or sustainability. Quality was assessed based on a tool developed by Hawker et al.

RESULTS

Of the 1173 retrieved articles, 30 studies were included of which 11 of high quality. Most studies involved a combination of patients/public (N=23) and providers (N=17) as key stakeholders in the living lab approach. Living lab components were mostly applied in the development phase of innovations (N=21). The majority of studies reported on achievement of acceptability (N=22) and feasibility (N=17) in terms of implementation outcomes. A broader spectrum of implementation outcomes was only evaluated in one study. We found that in particular six success factors were mentioned for the added-value of using living lab components for healthcare innovations: leadership, involvement, timing, openness, organisational support and ownership.

CONCLUSIONS

The living lab approach showed to contribute to successful implementation outcomes. This integrative review suggests that using a living lab approach fosters collaboration and participation in the development and implementation of new healthcare innovations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020166895.

Barriers, frameworks, and mitigating strategies influencing the dissemination and implementation of health promotion interventions in indigenous communities: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Many Indigenous communities across the USA and Canada experience a disproportionate burden of health disparities. Effective programs and interventions are essential to build protective skills for different age groups to improve health outcomes. Understanding the relevant barriers and facilitators to the successful dissemination, implementation, and retention of evidence-based interventions and/or evidence-informed programs in Indigenous communities can help guide their dissemination.

PURPOSE

To identify common barriers to dissemination and implementation (D&I) and effective mitigating frameworks and strategies used to successfully disseminate and implement evidence-based interventions and/or evidence-informed programs in American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (NH/PI), and Canadian Indigenous communities.

METHODS

A scoping review, informed by the York methodology, comprised five steps: (1) identification of the research questions; (2) searching for relevant studies; (3) selection of studies relevant to the research questions; (4) data charting; and (5) collation, summarization, and reporting of results. The established D&I SISTER strategy taxonomy provided criteria for categorizing reported strategies.

RESULTS

Candidate studies that met inclusion/exclusion criteria were extracted from PubMed (n = 19), Embase (n = 18), and Scopus (n = 1). Seventeen studies were excluded following full review resulting in 21 included studies. The most frequently cited category of barriers was "Social Determinants of Health in Communities." Forty-three percent of barriers were categorized in this community/society-policy level of the SEM and most studies (n = 12, 57%) cited this category. Sixteen studies (76%) used a D&I framework or model (mainly CBPR) to disseminate and implement health promotion evidence-based programs in Indigenous communities. Most highly ranked strategies (80%) corresponded with those previously identified as "important" and "feasible" for D&I The most commonly reported SISTER strategy was "Build partnerships (i.e., coalitions) to support implementation" (86%).

CONCLUSION

D&I frameworks and strategies are increasingly cited as informing the adoption, implementation, and sustainability of evidence-based programs within Indigenous communities. This study contributes towards identifying barriers and effective D&I frameworks and strategies critical to improving reach and sustainability of evidence-based programs in Indigenous communities.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A (scoping review).