Trust and Mistrust in Shaping Adaptation and De-Implementation in the Context of Changing Screening Guidelines

Effects of exposure to media messages about limiting breast cancer screening: A qualitative experimental study

OBJECTIVE

Examine how women aged 35-50 respond to messages about limiting cancer screening.

METHODS

A national sample of women aged 35-50 (n = 983) were randomly assigned to read one of four media vignettes: three provided information about potential harms of mammograms using evidence, norms, or an anecdote strategy, and one provided no such information. Participants listed thoughts they had about the message, and after coding these themes, we tested for associations between the themes evoked, message exposure, and mammogram history.

RESULTS

Thematic categories included emotions (8 %); behavioral intentions (14 %); and cognitions, attitudes, and beliefs (67 %). Pro-screening attitudes, questioning, and cues to get screened were most prevalent. The anecdote message often elicited pro-screening attitudes, while the evidence message often elicited negative emotions and anger, as well as questioning or skeptical responses. Those with a history of mammograms expressed more pro-screening attitudes and disagreed with the message more often.

CONCLUSIONS

Media messaging about guideline-supported care, especially when it involves reducing a clinical service that is routine and valued by patients, may evoke counterarguing, skepticism, and other negative responses.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians should recognize the role of the media in potentially shaping women's attitudes, beliefs, and intentions when it comes to breast cancer screening.

Advancing healthcare equity through dissemination and implementation science

OBJECTIVE

To provide guiding principles and recommendations for how approaches from the field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) science can advance healthcare equity.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

This article, part of a special issue sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), is based on an outline drafted to support proceedings of the 2022 AHRQ Health Equity Summit and further revised to reflect input from Summit attendees.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a narrative review of the current and potential applications of D&I approaches for understanding and advancing healthcare equity, followed by discussion and feedback with Summit attendees.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We identified major themes in narrative and systematic reviews related to D&I science, healthcare equity, and their intersections. Based on our expertise, and supported by synthesis of published studies, we propose recommendations for how D&I science is relevant for advancing healthcare equity. We used iterative discussions internally and at the Summit to refine preliminary findings and recommendations.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We identified four guiding principles and three D&I science domains with strong promise for accelerating progress toward healthcare equity. We present eight recommendations and more than 60 opportunities for action by practitioners, healthcare leaders, policy makers, and researchers.

CONCLUSIONS

Promising areas for D&I science to impact healthcare equity include the following: attention to equity in the development and delivery of evidence-based interventions; the science of adaptation; de-implementation of low-value care; monitoring equity markers; organizational policies for healthcare equity; improving the economic evaluation of implementation; policy and dissemination research; and capacity building.

Making the connection between health equity and sustainability

Sustainability and health inequities are key challenges in public health and healthcare. Research suggests that only about half of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) are sustained over time, and settings and populations experiencing systemic and structural barriers to health (e.g., poverty, racism, stigma, and discrimination) experience even greater challenges to sustainability. In this article, we argue that an enhanced focus on sustainability in the field of implementation science is critical in order to maximize the long-term health benefits and broader societal impacts of EBIs for all populations and settings. From an equity perspective, a focus on sustainability is particularly critical to prioritize among population sub-groups that have not historically received the benefits of health-related EBIs. We discuss how a health equity framing is essential to sustaining EBIs in under-resourced communities, and requires moving away from a deficit mindset that focuses on why EBIs are challenging to sustain, to one that focuses more on identifying and nurturing existing assets within individuals and communities to increase the likelihood that EBIs are sustained. We conclude with a discussion of future directions as well as recommendations and resources (e.g., frameworks, tools) to advance and make progress toward sustainability from a health equity mindset, including: (1) Actively planning early for sustainability alongside key partners; (2) Tracking progress toward enhancing sustainability and being accountable in doing so equitably for all settings and populations; and (3) Focusing on both equity and engagement early and often throughout the research process and all implementation phases.

Increasing consumer engagement: tools to engage service users in quality improvement or implementation efforts

Introduction

Engaging service users or consumers in quality improvement or implementing a new service is important across settings and may reduce health inequities. Implementation strategies leveraging consumer engagement are neither commonly used nor robustly operationalized in implementation science. Implementers (e.g., middle managers, facilitators) want to involve consumers in implementation activities, but do not always feel confident in how to proceed. We developed a compendium of tools called Consumer Voice to guide others how to engage consumers in design/delivery of implementation strategies. Although generalizable to other settings, we developed Consumer Voice within the context of implementing suicide prevention treatments in healthcare to reach rural U.S. military veterans, as there are suicide inequities for people in rural areas.

Methods

We developed Consumer Voice using a multistep process and human-centered design methods. In between steps, a design team met to generate insights from data, and decide which prototypes to create/refine. In preliminary work, we conducted a scan of examples in healthcare of patient engagement in implementation activities and interviewed two implementation experts about preferred learning styles. In Step 1, we interviewed 26 participants with experience in community engagement, implementation, or lived experience as a rural U.S. veteran with suicidal thoughts/behavior. In Step 2, 11 implementers beta tested prototypes then share feedback in focus groups. In Step 3, we reconvened participants from prior steps to review tools and, using nominal group technique, prioritized remaining recommendations.

Results

Consumer Voice is online, modular, and nonlinear for self-guided learning tailored to beginner, intermediate, or advanced experience with consumer engagement. Tools consist of slides, audiovisual content with written text, and templates. Findings indicated there is not one "right" way to engage consumers in implementation activities, rather that implementers wanted tools showcasing core principles for consumer engagement and practical ideas.

Discussion

Consumer Voice can be used by implementers to reflect and decide on how to apply consumer engagement implementation strategies to improve equitable dissemination and uptake of evidence-based practices. Most insights generated by user data were explicitly to build trust between consumers and professionals representing institutions, which may be one component to reducing healthcare inequities.

Understanding the effect of new U.S. cervical cancer screening guidelines and modalities on patients' comprehension and reporting of their cervical cancer screening behavior

With recent shifts in guideline-recommended cervical cancer screening in the U.S., it is important to accurately measure screening behavior. Previous studies have indicated the U.S. National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a resource for measuring self-reported screening adherence, has lower validity among non-White racial/ethnic groups and non-English speakers. Further, measuring diverse population groups' comprehension of items and attitudes toward HPV self-sampling merits investigation as it is a modality likely to be recommended in the U.S. soon. This study cognitively tested NHIS items assessing recency of and reasons for receiving cervical cancer screening and attitudes toward HPV self-sampling. We conducted cognitive interviews between April 2021 - April 2022 in English and Spanish with individuals screened in the past two years by either a medical center in metropolitan Seattle, Washington or a safety-net healthcare system in Dallas, Texas. Interviews probed understanding of reasons for screening, experiences with abnormal results, and interest in HPV self-sampling. We completed 32 interviews in Seattle and 42 interviews in Dallas. A majority of participants were unaware that two different tests for cervical cancer screening exist (Pap and HPV). Many did not know which type(s) of test they received. Dallas participants had more limited and inaccurate knowledge of HPV compared to Seattle participants, and fewer responded favorably toward HPV self-sampling (32% vs. 55%). To improve comprehension and accurate reporting of cervical cancer screening, we suggest specific refinements to currently used survey questions. Attitudes toward self-sampling should be explored further as differences may exist by region and/or sociodemographic factors.

Promises and pitfalls in implementation science from the perspective of US-based researchers: learning from a pre-mortem

BACKGROUND

Implementation science is at a sufficiently advanced stage that it is appropriate for the field to reflect on progress thus far in achieving its vision, with a goal of charting a path forward. In this debate, we offer such reflections and report on potential threats that might stymie progress, as well as opportunities to enhance the success and impact of the field, from the perspective of a group of US-based researchers.

MAIN BODY

Ten mid-career extramurally funded US-based researchers completed a "pre-mortem" or a group brainstorming exercise that leverages prospective hindsight to imagine that an event has already occurred and to generate an explanation for it - to reduce the likelihood of a poor outcome. We came to consensus on six key themes related to threats and opportunities for the field: (1) insufficient impact, (2) too much emphasis on being a "legitimate science," (3) re-creation of the evidence-to-practice gap, (4) difficulty balancing accessibility and field coherence, (5) inability to align timelines and priorities with partners, and (6) overly complex implementation strategies and approaches.

CONCLUSION

We submit this debate piece to generate further discussion with other implementation partners as our field continues to develop and evolve. We hope the key opportunities identified will enhance the future of implementation research in the USA and spark discussion across international groups. We will continue to learn with humility about how best to implement with the goal of achieving equitable population health impact at scale.

Assessing researchers' capabilities, opportunities, and motivation to conduct equity-oriented dissemination and implementation research, an exploratory cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

A recent paradigm shift has led to an explicit focus on enhancing health equity through equity-oriented dissemination and implementation (D&I) research. However, the integration and bidirectional learning across these two fields is still in its infancy and siloed. This exploratory study aimed to examine participants' perceived capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to conduct equity-oriented D&I research.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory cross-sectional survey distributed online from December 2020 to April 2021. Participants were recruited at either D&I or health disparities-oriented conferences, meetings, through social media, or personal outreach via emails. Informed by the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model (COM-B), the survey queried respondents about different aspects of engaging in and conducting equity-oriented D&I research. All analyses were conducted in SPSS Version 27.0.

RESULTS

A total of 180 participants responded to the survey. Most participants were women (81.7%), white (66.1%), academics (78.9%), and faculty members (53.9%). Many reported they were advanced (36.7%) or advanced beginners (27.8%) in the D&I field, and a substantial proportion (37.8%) reported being novice in D&I research that focused on health equity. Participants reported high motivation (e.g., 62.8% were motivated to apply theories, models, frameworks for promoting health equity in D&I research), but low capability to conduct equity-oriented D&I research (e.g., 5% had the information needed for promoting health equity in D&I research). Most participants (62.2%) reported not having used measures to examine equity in their D&I projects, and for those who did use measures, they mainly used individual-level measures (vs. organizational- or structural-level measures). When asked about factors that could influence their ability to conduct equity-oriented D&I research, 44.4% reported not having the skills necessary, and 32.2% stated difficulties in receiving funding for equity-oriented D&I research.

CONCLUSIONS

Study findings provide empirical insight into the perspectives of researchers from different backgrounds on what is needed to conduct equity-oriented D&I research. These data suggest the need for a multi-pronged approach to enhance the capability and opportunities for conducting equity-oriented D&I work, such as: training specifically in equity-oriented D&I, collaboration between D&I researchers with individuals with expertise and lived experience with health equity research, funding for equity-oriented D&I research, and recognition of the value of community engaged research in promotion packages.

De-implementing low-value care in cancer care delivery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Accumulating evidence suggests that interventions to de-implement low-value services are urgently needed. While medical societies and educational campaigns such as Choosing Wisely have developed several guidelines and recommendations pertaining to low-value care, little is known about interventions that exist to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings. We conducted this review to summarize the literature on interventions to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the published literature in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus from 1 January 1990 to 4 March 2021. We screened the retrieved abstracts for eligibility against inclusion criteria and conducted a full-text review of all eligible studies on de-implementation interventions in cancer care delivery. We used the framework analysis approach to summarize included studies' key characteristics including design, type of cancer, outcome(s), objective(s), de-implementation interventions description, and determinants of the de-implementation interventions. To extract the data, pairs of authors placed text from included articles into the appropriate cells within our framework. We analyzed extracted data from each cell to describe the studies and findings of de-implementation interventions aiming to reduce low-value cancer care.

RESULTS

Out of 2794 studies, 12 met our inclusion criteria. The studies covered several cancer types, including prostate cancer (n = 5), gastrointestinal cancer (n = 3), lung cancer (n = 2), breast cancer (n = 2), and hematologic cancers (n = 1). Most of the interventions (n = 10) were multifaceted. Auditing and providing feedback, having a clinical champion, educating clinicians through developing and disseminating new guidelines, and developing a decision support tool are the common components of the de-implementation interventions. Six of the de-implementation interventions were effective in reducing low-value care, five studies reported mixed results, and one study showed no difference across intervention arms. Eleven studies aimed to de-implement low-value care by changing providers' behavior, and 1 de-implementation intervention focused on changing the patients' behavior. Three studies had little risk of bias, five had moderate, and four had a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrated a paucity of evidence in many areas of the de-implementation of low-value care including lack of studies in active de-implementation (i.e., healthcare organizations initiating de-implementation interventions purposefully aimed at reducing low-value care).

Pragmatic Trials in Long-Term Care: Research Challenges and Potential Solutions in Relation to Key Areas of Care

As a method of research, pragmatic trials are recommended so as to generate results that are applicable to real-world care. This intent is especially important for the millions of older adults who receive long-term care in thousands of nursing homes and assisted living communities across the country-and many millions more around the globe. This article presents key points raised by experts participating in a conference funded by the National Institute of Aging held at the 2021 conference of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-term Care Medicine. The purpose of the conference was to convene leading clinicians, researchers, and industry partners to address special considerations of pragmatic trials in long-term care. Cross-cutting and unique challenges and solutions to conducting pragmatic trials were discussed focusing on 3 areas of clinical relevance to long-term care: (1) functional care and outcomes, (2) psychosocial care and quality of life, and (3) medical care and outcomes, with a special focus on persons with dementia. Challenges and innovative solutions were organized across the 9 domains of the revised Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) Tool, and future research recommendations for pragmatic trials in long-term care were identified.

Pragmatic Trials in Long-Term Care: Research Challenges and Potential Solutions in Relation to Key Areas of Care

As a method of research, pragmatic trials are recommended so as to generate results that are applicable to real-world care. This intent is especially important for the millions of older adults who receive long-term care in thousands of nursing homes and assisted living communities across the country-and many millions more around the globe. This article presents key points raised by experts participating in a conference funded by the National Institute of Aging held at the 2021 conference of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-term Care Medicine. The purpose of the conference was to convene leading clinicians, researchers, and industry partners to address special considerations of pragmatic trials in long-term care. Cross-cutting and unique challenges and solutions to conducting pragmatic trials were discussed focusing on 3 areas of clinical relevance to long-term care: (1) functional care and outcomes, (2) psychosocial care and quality of life, and (3) medical care and outcomes, with a special focus on persons with dementia. Challenges and innovative solutions were organized across the 9 domains of the revised Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) Tool, and future research recommendations for pragmatic trials in long-term care were identified.

Pragmatic trials in long-term care: Research challenges and potential solutions in relation to key areas of care

As a method of research, pragmatic trials are recommended so as to generate results that are applicable to real-world care. This intent is especially important for the millions of older adults who receive long-term care in thousands of nursing homes and assisted living communities across the country-and many millions more around the globe. This article presents key points raised by experts participating in a conference funded by the National Institute of Aging held at the 2021 conference of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-term Care Medicine. The purpose of the conference was to convene leading clinicians, researchers, and industry partners to address special considerations of pragmatic trials in long-term care. Cross-cutting and unique challenges and solutions to conducting pragmatic trials were discussed focusing on 3 areas of clinical relevance to long-term care: (1) functional care and outcomes, (2) psychosocial care and quality of life, and (3) medical care and outcomes, with a special focus on persons with dementia. Challenges and innovative solutions were organized across the 9 domains of the revised Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) Tool, and future research recommendations for pragmatic trials in long-term care were identified.

Recruitment and Retention of Healthy, Postmenopausal Women of African and European Ancestry: Results from a Dietary Intervention with Repeated Biospecimen Collections

Recruitment of minority participants to clinical trials, especially studies without therapeutic intent, has been historically challenging. This study describes barriers to and successes of recruitment and retention strategies to dietary studies. A flaxseed study was conducted in healthy, postmenopausal women of African ancestry (AA) and European ancestry (EA) to assess associations between gut microbial community composition and host metabolism (NCT01698294). To ensure equitable participation by AA and EA women, multiple forms of recruitment were utilized, including advertisements, posters, e-mail, word of mouth, and community outreach. Successful recruitment and retention of AA women to the intervention depended upon the specific methods used. AA women compared with EA women were more likely to respond to direct recruitment and community-based methods, rather than general advertisements. However, once women expressed interest, similar rates of consent were observed for AA and EA women (AA and EA: 51.6% vs. 55.7%, respectively; P > 0.05), supporting the willingness of minority populations to participate in clinical research. Retention, however, was lower among AA compared with EA women (AA and EA: 57.6% vs. 80.9%, respectively; P < 0.01), which may be related to multiple factors, including health reasons, intolerance to flaxseed, noncompliance with study requirements, time constraints, and nonspecified personal reasons. This study confirms the utility of direct community-based strategies for recruitment of diverse populations into nontherapeutic dietary intervention studies. The methods used successfully identified eligible women who expressed willingness to consent to the trial and were able to achieve >70% of recruitment goals for AA women. Future efforts are warranted to improve retention to complex studies. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01698294.

"It's good to feel like you're doing something": a qualitative study examining state health department employees' views on why ineffective programs continue to be implemented in the USA

Background

Mis-implementation, the inappropriate continuation of programs or policies that are not evidence-based or the inappropriate termination of evidence-based programs and policies, can lead to the inefficient use of scarce resources in public health agencies and decrease the ability of these agencies to deliver effective programs and improve population health. Little is known about why mis-implementation occurs, which is needed to understand how to address it. This study sought to understand the state health department practitioners’ perspectives about what makes programs ineffective and the reasons why ineffective programs continue.

Methods

Eight state health departments (SHDs) were selected to participate in telephone-administered qualitative interviews about decision-making around ending or continuing programs. States were selected based on geographic representation and on their level of mis-implementation (low and high) categorized from our previous national survey. Forty-four SHD chronic disease staff participated in interviews, which were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were consensus coded, and themes were identified and summarized. This paper presents two sets of themes, related to (1) what makes a program ineffective and (2) why ineffective programs continue to be implemented according to SHD staff.

Results

Participants considered programs ineffective if they were not evidence-based or if they did not fit well within the population; could not be implemented well due to program restraints or a lack of staff time and resources; did not reach those who could most benefit from the program; or did not show the expected program outcomes through evaluation. Practitioners described several reasons why ineffective programs continued to be implemented, including concerns about damaging the relationships with partner organizations, the presence of program champions, agency capacity, and funding restrictions.

Conclusions

The continued implementation of ineffective programs occurs due to a number of interrelated organizational, relational, human resources, and economic factors. Efforts should focus on preventing mis-implementation since it limits public health agencies’ ability to conduct evidence-based public health, implement evidence-based programs effectively, and reduce the high burden of chronic diseases. The use of evidence-based decision-making in public health agencies and supporting adaptation of programs to improve their fit may prevent mis-implementation. Future work should identify effective strategies to reduce mis-implementation, which can optimize public health practice and improve population health.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-021-00252-4.

A typology of power in implementation: Building on the exploration, preparation, implementation, sustainment (EPIS) framework to advance mental health and HIV health equity

Background

Persistent inequities in HIV health are due, in part, to barriers to successful HIV-related mental health intervention implementation with marginalized groups. Implementation Science (IS) has begun to examine how the field can promote health equity. Lacking is a clear method to analyze how power is generated and distributed through practical implementation processes and how this power can dismantle and/or reproduce health inequity through intervention implementation. The aims of this paper are to (1) propose a typology of power generated through implementation processes, (2) apply this power typology to expand on the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework to advance HIV and mental health equity and (3) articulate questions to guide the explicit examination and distribution of power throughout implementation.

Methods

This paper draws on the work of an Intermediary Purveyor organization implementing trauma-informed care and harm reduction organizational change with HIV service organizations. The expanded framework was developed through analyzing implementation coaching field notes, grant reporting, and evaluation documents, training feedback, partner evaluation interviews, and existing implementation literature.

Results

The authors identify three types of power working through implementation; (1) discursive power is enacted through defining health-related problems to be targeted by intervention implementation, as well as through health narratives that emerge through implementation; (2) epistemic power influences whose knowledge is valued in decision-making and is recreated through knowledge generation; and (3) material power is created through resource distribution and patterns of access to health resources and acquisition of health benefits provided by the intervention. Decisions across all phases and related to all factors of EPIS influence how these forms of power striate through intervention implementation and ultimately affect health equity outcomes.

Conclusions

The authors conclude with a set of concrete questions for researchers and practitioners to interrogate power throughout the implementation process.

Plain language summary

Over the past few years, Implementation Science researchers have committed increased attention to the ways in which the field can more effectively address health inequity. Lacking is a clear method to analyze how implementation processes themselves generate power that has the potential to contribute to health inequity. In this paper, the authors describe and define three types of power that are created and distributed through intervention implementation; discursive power, epistemic power, and material power. The authors then explain how these forms of power shape factors and phases of implementation, using the well-known EPIS (exploration, preparation, implementation, sustainment) framework. The authors draw from their experience working with and Intermediary Purveyor supporting HIV service organizations implementing trauma-informed care and harm reduction organizational change projects. This paper concludes with a set of critical questions that can be used by researchers and practitioners as a concrete tool to analyze the role of power in intervention implementation processes.

Application of an antiracism lens in the field of implementation science (IS): Recommendations for reframing implementation research with a focus on justice and racial equity

Background

Despite the promise of implementation science (IS) to reduce health inequities, critical gaps and opportunities remain in the field to promote health equity. Prioritizing racial equity and antiracism approaches is critical in these efforts, so that IS does not inadvertently exacerbate disparities based on the selection of frameworks, methods, interventions, and strategies that do not reflect consideration of structural racism and its impacts.

Methods

Grounded in extant research on structural racism and antiracism, we discuss the importance of advancing understanding of how structural racism as a system shapes racial health inequities and inequitable implementation of evidence-based interventions among racially and ethnically diverse communities. We outline recommendations for explicitly applying an antiracism lens to address structural racism and its manifests through IS. An anti-racism lens provides a framework to guide efforts to confront, address, and eradicate racism and racial privilege by helping people identify racism as a root cause of health inequities and critically examine how it is embedded in policies, structures, and systems that differentially affect racially and ethnically diverse populations.

Results

We provide guidance for the application of an antiracism lens in the field of IS, focusing on select core elements in implementation research, including: (1) stakeholder engagement; (2) conceptual frameworks and models; (3) development, selection, adaptation of EBIs; (4) evaluation approaches; and (5) implementation strategies. We highlight the need for foundational grounding in antiracism frameworks among implementation scientists to facilitate ongoing self-reflection, accountability, and attention to racial equity, and provide questions to guide such reflection and consideration.

Conclusion

We conclude with a reflection on how this is a critical time for IS to prioritize focus on justice, racial equity, and real-world equitable impact. Moving IS towards making consideration of health equity and an antiracism lens foundational is central to strengthening the field and enhancing its impact.

Plain language abstract

There are important gaps and opportunities that exist in promoting health equity through implementation science. Historically, the commonly used frameworks, measures, interventions, strategies, and approaches in the field have not been explicitly focused on equity, nor do they consider the role of structural racism in shaping health and inequitable delivery of evidence-based practices/programs. This work seeks to build off of the long history of research on structural racism and health, and seeks to provide guidance on how to apply an antiracism lens to select core elements of implementation research. We highlight important opportunities for the field to reflect and consider applying an antiracism approach in: 1) stakeholder/community engagement; 2) use of conceptual frameworks; 3) development, selection and adaptation of evidence-based interventions; 4) evaluation approaches; 5) implementation strategies (e.g., how to deliver evidence-based practices, programs, policies); and 6) how researchers conduct their research, with a focus on racial equity. This is an important time for the field of implementation science to prioritize a foundational focus on justice, equity, and real-world impact through the application of an anti-racism lens in their work.

A scoping review of de-implementation frameworks and models

BACKGROUND

Reduction or elimination of inappropriate, ineffective, or potentially harmful healthcare services and public health programs can help to ensure limited resources are used effectively. Frameworks and models (FM) are valuable tools in conceptualizing and guiding the study of de-implementation. This scoping review sought to identify and characterize FM that can be used to study de-implementation as a phenomenon and identify gaps in the literature to inform future model development and application for research.

METHODS

We searched nine databases and eleven journals from a broad array of disciplines (e.g., healthcare, public health, public policy) for de-implementation studies published between 1990 and June 2020. Two raters independently screened titles and abstracts, and then a pair of raters screened all full text records. We extracted information related to setting, discipline, study design, methodology, and FM characteristics from included studies.

RESULTS

The final search yielded 1860 records, from which we screened 126 full text records. We extracted data from 27 articles containing 27 unique FM. Most FM (n = 21) were applicable to two or more levels of the Socio-Ecological Framework, and most commonly assessed constructs were at the organization level (n = 18). Most FM (n = 18) depicted a linear relationship between constructs, few depicted a more complex structure, such as a nested or cyclical relationship. Thirteen studies applied FM in empirical investigations of de-implementation, while 14 articles were commentary or review papers that included FM.

CONCLUSION

De-implementation is a process studied in a broad array of disciplines, yet implementation science has thus far been limited in the integration of learnings from other fields. This review offers an overview of visual representations of FM that implementation researchers and practitioners can use to inform their work. Additional work is needed to test and refine existing FM and to determine the extent to which FM developed in one setting or for a particular topic can be applied to other contexts. Given the extensive availability of FM in implementation science, we suggest researchers build from existing FM rather than recreating novel FM.

REGISTRATION

Not registered.

Navigated African American breast cancer patients as incidental change agents in their family/friend networks

BACKGROUND

Patient navigation is an increasingly widespread intervention to address the persistent, severe, and disproportionate breast cancer (BC) burden that African Americans (AA) face. Navigation may have more widespread effects than previously estimated due to patient-driven diffusion of BC information.

METHODS

This pilot study examined the network effects of a randomized controlled trial via recruitment of navigated and non-navigated AA BC patients as well as their network members. We estimated study arm differences in patient BC promotion (i.e., number of individuals to whom BC patients promote BC screening) and network BC screening (i.e., % BC screening among network members).

RESULTS

Among our sample of 100 AA BC patients, navigated patients promoted BC screening to more individuals than non-navigated patients. BC patients were more likely to promote BC screening to children and individuals with whom they communicated more frequently. Some models further suggested more network BC screening among "navigated" network members relative to "non-navigated" network members.

CONCLUSIONS

Navigated AA patients promoted BC screening more widely throughout their networks than non-navigated AA BC patients. There were also suggestive findings regarding increased BC screening among their network members. Our pilot study highlights the potential for social network analysis to improve the precision of intervention effect estimates and to inform future innovations (e.g., integrating navigation and network-based interventions) with multilevel effects on cancer health disparities.

"That same stigma...that same hatred and negativity:" a qualitative study to understand stigma and medical mistrust experienced by people living with HIV diagnosed with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 and HIV epidemics have exacerbated existing inequities among vulnerable groups and severely impacted communities of color. People living with HIV (PLWH), who may already face stigma or discrimination, are at risk of experiencing further stigma as a result of COVID-19, which can result in medical mistrust.

METHODS

We performed qualitative interviews between June and August 2020 among 32 PLWH, including 10 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19. A majority of participants perceived themselves as having an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 due to their HIV status.

RESULTS

Of those who tested positive for COVID-19, the majority regarded their HIV diagnosis as having a more profound impact on their lives but found similarities between COVID-19 stigma and HIV-related stigma. Many participants also expressed mistrust.

CONCLUSIONS

These results can be used to better understand the perspectives of PLWH during the COVID-19 pandemic and have important implications for potential COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and future health crises.

A mixed-methods study of multi-level factors influencing mammography overuse among an older ethnically diverse screening population: implications for de-implementation

BACKGROUND

There is growing concern that routine mammography screening is overused among older women. Successful and equitable de-implementation of mammography will require a multi-level understanding of the factors contributing to mammography overuse.

METHODS

This explanatory, sequential, mixed-methods study collected survey data (n= 52, 73.1% Hispanic, 73.1% Spanish-speaking) from women ≥70 years of age at the time of screening mammography, followed by semi-structured interviews with a subset of older women completing the survey (n=19, 63.2% Hispanic, 63.2% Spanish-speaking) and providers (n=5, 4 primary care, 1 obstetrics and gynecology) to better understand multi-level factors influencing mammography overuse and inform potential de-implementation strategies. We conducted a descriptive analysis of survey data and content analysis of qualitative interview data. Survey and interview data were examined separately, compared, integrated, and organized according to Norton and Chambers Continuum of Factors Influencing De-Implementation Process.

RESULTS

Survey findings show that 87.2% of older women believe it is important to plan for an annual mammogram, 80.8% received a provider recommendation, and 78.9% received a reminder in the last 12 months to schedule a mammogram. Per interviews with older women, the majority were unaware of or did not perceive to have experienced overuse and intended to continue mammography screening. Findings from interviews with older women and providers suggest that there are multiple opportunities for older women to obtain a mammogram. Per provider interviews, almost all reported that reducing overuse was not viewed as a priority by the system or other providers. Providers also discussed that variation in mammography screening practices across providers, fear of malpractice, and monetary incentives may contribute to overscreening. Providers identified potential strategies to reduce overscreening including patient and provider education around harms of screening, leveraging the electronic health record to identify women who may receive less health benefit from screening, customizing system-generated reminder letters, and organizing workgroups to develop standard processes of care around mammography screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-level factors contributing to mammography overuse are dynamic, interconnected, and reinforced. To ensure equitable de-implementation, there is a need for more refined and empirical testing of theories, models, and frameworks for de-implementation with a strong patient-level component that considers the interplay between multilevel factors and the larger care delivery process.