Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objectives. We sought to outline the framework and methods used by the World Health Organization (WHO) STEPwise approach to noncommunicable disease (NCD) surveillance (STEPS), describe the development and current status, and discuss strengths, limitations, and future directions of STEPS surveillance. Methods. STEPS is a WHO-developed, standardized but flexible framework for countries to monitor the main NCD risk factors through questionnaire assessment and physical and biochemical measurements. It is coordinated by national authorities of the implementing country. The STEPS surveys are generally household-based and interviewer-administered, with scientifically selected samples of around 5000 participants. Results. To date, 122 countries across all 6 WHO regions have completed data collection for STEPS or STEPS-aligned surveys. Conclusions. STEPS data are being used to inform NCD policies and track risk-factor trends. Future priorities include strengthening these linkages from data to action on NCDs at the country level, and continuing to develop STEPS’ capacities to enable a regular and continuous cycle of risk-factor surveillance worldwide.

Implementing interventions with a previous evidence base in new contexts might be more efficient than developing new interventions for each context. Although some interventions transfer well, effectiveness and implementation often depend on the context. Achieving a good fit between intervention and context then requires careful and systematic adaptation. This paper presents new evidence and consensus informed guidance for adapting and transferring interventions to new contexts.

Background The use of implementation strategies is an active and purposive approach to translate research findings into routine clinical care. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) identified and defined discrete implementation strategies, and Proctor and colleagues have made recommendations for specifying operationalization of each strategy. We use empirical data to test how the ERIC taxonomy applies to a large dissemination and implementation initiative aimed at taking cardiac prevention to scale in primary care practice. Methods EvidenceNOW is an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality initiative that funded seven cooperatives across seven regions in the USA. Cooperatives implemented multi-component interventions to improve heart health and build quality improvement capacity, and used a range of implementation strategies to foster practice change. We used ERIC to identify cooperatives’ implementation strategies and specified the actor, action, target, dose, temporality, justification, and expected outcome for each. We mapped and compiled a matrix of the specified ERIC strategies across the cooperatives, and used consensus to resolve mapping differences. We then grouped implementation strategies by outcomes and justifications, which led to insights regarding the use of and linkages between ERIC strategies in real-world scale-up efforts. Results Thirty-three ERIC strategies were used by cooperatives. We identified a range of revisions to the ERIC taxonomy to improve the practical application of these strategies. These proposed changes include revisions to four strategy names and 12 definitions. We suggest adding three new strategies because they encapsulate distinct actions that were not described in the existing ERIC taxonomy. In addition, we organized ERIC implementation strategies into four functional groupings based on the way we observed them being applied in practice. These groupings show how ERIC strategies are, out of necessity, interconnected, to achieve the work involved in rapidly taking evidence to scale. Conclusions Findings of our work suggest revisions to the ERIC implementation strategies to reflect their utilization in real-work dissemination and implementation efforts. The functional groupings of the ERIC implementation strategies that emerged from on-the-ground implementers will help guide others in choosing among and linking multiple implementation strategies when planning small- and large-scale implementation efforts. Trial registration Registered as Observational Study at www.clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02560428 ).

Context: In 2008, researchers at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) described the Triple Aim as simultaneously \"improving the individual experience of care; improving the health of populations; and reducing the per capita costs of care for populations.\" IHI and its close colleagues had determined that both individual and societal changes were needed. Methods: In 2007, IHI began recruiting organizations from around the world to participate in a collaborative to implement what became known as the Triple Aim. The 141 participating organizations included health care systems, hospitals, health care insurance companies, and others closely tied to health care. In addition, key groups outside the health care system were represented, such as public health agencies, social services groups, and community coalitions. This collaborative provided a structure for observational research. By noting the contrasts between the contexts and structures of those sites in the collaborative that progressed and those that did not, we were able to develop an ex post theory of what is needed for an organization or community to successfully pursue the Triple Aim. Findings: Drawing on our 7 years of experience, we describe the 3 major principles that guided the organizations and communities working on the Triple Aim: creating the right foundation for population management, managing services at scale for the population, and establishing a learning system to drive and sustain the work over time. Conclusions: The concept of the Triple Aim is now widely used, because of IHI's work with many organizations and also because of the adoption of the Triple Aim as part of the national strategy for US health care, developed during the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Even those organizations working on the Triple Aim before IHI coined the term found our concept to be useful because it helped them think about all 3 dimensions at once and organize their work around them.

Given the current trends in incidence and underlying healthcare systems vulnerabilities, Africa could become the next epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the pandemic transitions to more widespread community transmission, how can the lessons learned thus far be consolidated to effectively curb the spread of COVID-19 while minimizing social disruption and negative humanitarian and economic consequences?

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Implementing new programs and practices is challenging, even when they are mandated. Implementation Facilitation (IF) strategies that focus on partnering with sites show promise for addressing these challenges. OBJECTIVE Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of an external/internal IF strategy within the context of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mandate of Primary Care–Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI). DESIGN This was a quasi-experimental, Hybrid Type III study. Generalized estimating equations assessed differences across sites. PARTICIPANTS Patients and providers at seven VA primary care clinics receiving the IF intervention and national support and seven matched comparison clinics receiving national support only participated in the study. INTERVENTION We used a highly partnered IF strategy incorporating evidence-based implementation interventions. MAIN MEASURES We evaluated the IF strategy using VA administrative data and RE-AIM framework measures for two 6-month periods. KEY RESULTS Evaluation of RE-AIM measures from the first 6-month period indicated that PC patients at IF clinics had nine times the odds (OR=8.93, p <0.001) of also being seen in PC-MHI (Reach) compared to patients at non-IF clinics. PC providers at IF clinics had seven times the odds (OR=7.12, p=0.029) of referring patients to PC-MHI (Adoption) than providers at non-IF clinics, and a greater proportion of providers’ patients at IF clinics were referred to PC-MHI (Adoption) compared to non-IF clinics (β=0.027, p <0.001). Compared to PC patients at non-IF sites, patients at IF clinics did not have lower odds (OR=1.34, p =0.232) of being referred for first-time mental health specialty clinic visits (Effectiveness), or higher odds (OR=1.90, p =0.350) of receiving same-day access (Implementation). Assessment of program sustainability ( Maintenance ) was conducted by repeating this analysis for a second 6-month time period. Maintenance analyses results were similar to the earlier period. CONCLUSION The addition of a highly partnered IF strategy to national level support resulted in greater Reach and Adoption of the mandated PC-MHI initiative, thereby increasing patient access to VA mental health care.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) presents an adaptation of the current Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations for human papillo-mavirus (HPV) vaccination. The ACS recommends routine HPV vaccination between ages 9 and 12 years to achieve higher on-time vaccination rates, which will lead to increased numbers of cancers prevented. Health care providers are encouraged to start offering the HPV vaccine series at age 9 or 10 years. Catch-up HPV vaccination is recommended for all persons through age 26 years who are not adequately vac-cinated. Providers should inform individuals aged 22 to 26 years who have not been previously vaccinated or who have not completed the series that vaccination at older ages is less effective in lowering cancer risk. Catch-up HPV vaccination is not recom-mended for adults aged older than 26 years. The ACS does not endorse the 2019 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendation for shared clinical decision making for some adults aged 27 through 45 years who are not adequately vaccinated because of the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, the burden of decision making on patients and clini-cians, and the lack of sufficient guidance on the selection of individuals who might benefit.

In sub-Saharan Africa, adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) are 5 to 14 times more likely to be infected with HIV than their male peers. Every day, more than 750 AGYW are infected with HIV. Many factors make girls and young women particularly vulnerable to HIV, including gender-based violence, exclusion from economic opportunities, and a lack of access to secondary school. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is dedicating significant resources through the Determined, Resilient, Empowered, AIDS-free, Mentored, and Safe (DREAMS) partnership to impact the lives of women and girls based on PEPFAR's mission to help countries achieve epidemic control of HIV/AIDS. The data show that new HIV infections must be reduced in AGYW, or the global community risks losing the extensive progress made towards reaching epidemic control. With support from PEPFAR and private sector partners-the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Gilead Sciences, Girl Effect, Johnson & Johnson and ViiV Healthcare, DREAMS works together with partner governments to deliver a core package of interventions that combines evidence-based approaches that go beyond the health sector, addressing the structural drivers that directly and indirectly increase girls' HIV risk. Not only is DREAMS an effort to reduce new HIV infections, but it aims to reduce other critical vulnerabilities such as gender-based violence. When girls and young women thrive, the effects are felt throughout their families, communities and countries.

The provision of patient-centered care requires a health care environment that fosters engagement between patients and their health care team. One way to encourage patient-centered care is to incorporate patient-reported outcomes into clinical settings. Collecting these outcomes in routine care ensures that important information only the patient can provide is captured. This provides insights into patients' experiences of symptoms, quality of life, and functioning; values and preferences; and goals for health care. Previously embraced in the research realm, patient-reported outcomes have started to play a role in successful shared decision making, which can enhance the safe and effective delivery of health care. We examine the opportunities for using patient-reported outcomes to enhance care delivery and outcomes as health care information needs and technology platforms change. We highlight emerging practices in which patient-reported outcomes provide value to patients and clinicians and improve care delivery. Finally, we examine present and future challenges to maximizing the use of patient-reported outcomes in the clinic.