Enhancing HIV Prevention and Care Through CAPUS and Other Demonstration Projects Aimed at Achieving National HIV/AIDS Strategy Goals, 2010-2018

Enhanced Federal Collaborations in Implementation Science and Research of HIV Prevention and Treatment

ABSTRACT

Over the past decade, national initiatives in the United States (U.S.) have focused HIV prevention and care programs and research to optimize the delivery of HIV prevention and treatment through implementation research. Although existing biomedical and behavioral prevention tools could end HIV in the U.S., the implementation of these tools has been uneven because of many factors, including organizational capacity, insufficient uptake by key populations, lack of success with prioritizing by geography or population growth, and inadequate scaling. To address these challenges, the federal government has funded programs, research, and evaluation projects aimed at improving health outcomes among people with HIV and people vulnerable to HIV acquisition. Increasingly, several special federal efforts are being conducted under the umbrella of "implementation science and research" that are essential components to scaling up evidence-based HIV prevention and treatment interventions in the U.S. This paper describes federal collaborations that have supported this increased focus on implementation from the perspective of 3 agencies in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. These federal collaborations have resulted in improved communication and coordination of efforts in the shaping and alignment of priorities in research and service delivery, increased implementation research conducted in real-world community and clinical settings and provided a feedback loop to expedite action in response to emerging evidence from such projects.

Supporting the Growth of Domestic HIV Implementation Research in the United States Through Coordination, Consultation, and Collaboration: How We Got Here and Where We Are Headed

BACKGROUND

The Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative sets a goal to virtually eliminate new HIV infections in the United States by 2030. The plan is predicated on the fact that tools exist for diagnosis, prevention, and treatment, and the current scientific challenge is how to implement them effectively and with equity. Implementation research (IR) can help identify strategies that support effective implementation of HIV services.

SETTING

NIH funded the Implementation Science Coordination Initiative (ISCI) to support rigorous and actionable IR by providing technical assistance to NIH-funded projects and supporting local implementation knowledge becoming generalizable knowledge.

METHODS

We describe the formation of ISCI, the services it provided to the HIV field, and data it collected from 147 NIH-funded studies. We also provide an overview of this supplement issue as a dissemination strategy for HIV IR.

CONCLUSION

Our ability to reach EHE 2030 goals is strengthened by the knowledge compiled in this supplement, the services of ISCI and connected hubs, and a myriad of investigators and implementation partners collaborating to better understand what is needed to effectively implement the many evidence-based HIV interventions at our disposal.

Project PrIDE in Context: Evolution of Evaluation in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Multi-Jurisdictional HIV Prevention Demonstration Projects

Over the past decade, CDC has been implementing a high-impact prevention (HIP) approach to HIV, directing funds towards activities with the greatest likelihood of reducing new infections and disparities. Corresponding to this shift, the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) began funding a series of multi-site demonstration projects to provide extra support and evaluative capacity to select health departments to initiate new HIP programming, with the intention of ascertaining and sharing lessons with other health departments. In this paper, we provide context for the PrEP, Implementation, Data2Care, Evaluation (PrIDE) evaluation by describing the evolution of evaluation goals and activities across three prior demonstration projects, highlighting four areas of change: 1) integrated evaluation and program implementation; 2) local program evaluation in addition to cross-site performance monitoring; 3) prescriptive allocation of resources to support local program evaluation; and 4) expansion beyond single site program evaluation to identify effective cross-site programmatic strategies. Together, these changes reflect our own learning about achieving the greatest contribution from multi-site projects and set the stage for unique aspects of program evaluation within PrIDE. We describe these features, concluding with lessons learned from this most recent approach to structuring and supporting evaluation within CDC DHAP's health department demonstration projects.

Project PrIDE in context: Evolution of evaluation in the centers for disease control and prevention's multi-jurisdictional HIV prevention demonstration projects

Over the past decade, CDC has been implementing a high-impact prevention (HIP) approach to HIV, directing funds towards activities with the greatest likelihood of reducing new infections and disparities. Corresponding to this shift, the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) began funding a series of multi-site demonstration projects to provide extra support and evaluative capacity to select health departments to initiate new HIP programming, with the intention of ascertaining and sharing lessons with other health departments. In this paper, we provide context for the PrEP, Implementation, Data2Care, Evaluation (PrIDE) evaluation by describing the evolution of evaluation goals and activities across three prior demonstration projects, highlighting four areas of change: 1) integrated evaluation and program implementation; 2) local program evaluation in addition to cross-site performance monitoring; 3) prescriptive allocation of resources to support local program evaluation; and 4) expansion beyond single site program evaluation to identify effective cross-site programmatic strategies. Together, these changes reflect our own learning about achieving the greatest contribution from multi-site projects and set the stage for unique aspects of program evaluation within PrIDE. We describe these features, concluding with lessons learned from this most recent approach to structuring and supporting evaluation within CDC DHAP's health department demonstration projects.