Explore the vast range of titles available.

Funders of programs in public health and community health are increasingly concerned about the sustainability of changes they initiate. Despite a recent increase in sustainability research and evaluation, this literature has not developed a widely used paradigm for conducting research that can accumulate into generalizable findings. We provide guidance for research and evaluation of health program sustainability, including definitions and types of sustainability, specifications and measurements of dependent variables, definitions of independent variables or factors that influence sustainability, and suggestions for designs for research and data collection. We suggest viewing sustainability research as a further stage in the translation or dissemination of research-based interventions into practice. This perspective emphasizes ongoing relationships with earlier stages of a broader diffusion framework, including adoption and implementation processes.

The term \"network interventions\" describes the process of using social network data to accelerate behavior change or improve organizational performance. In this Review, four strategies for network interventions are described, each of which has multiple tactical alternatives. Many of these tactics can incorporate different mathematical algorithms. Consequently, researchers have many intervention choices at their disposal. Selecting the appropriate network intervention depends on the availability and character of network data, perceived characteristics of the behavior, its existing prevalence, and the social context of the program.

This article introduces the approach of GRADE to rating quality of evidence. GRADE specifies four categories—high, moderate, low, and very low—that are applied to a body of evidence, not to individual studies. In the context of a systematic review, quality reflects our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct. In the context of recommendations, quality reflects our confidence that the effect estimates are adequate to support a particular recommendation. Randomized trials begin as high-quality evidence, observational studies as low quality. “Quality” as used in GRADE means more than risk of bias and so may also be compromised by imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness of study results, and publication bias. In addition, several factors can increase our confidence in an estimate of effect. GRADE provides a systematic approach for considering and reporting each of these factors. GRADE separates the process of assessing quality of evidence from the process of making recommendations. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation depend on more than just the quality of evidence.

GRADE requires a clear specification of the relevant setting, population, intervention, and comparator. It also requires specification of all important outcomes—whether evidence from research studies is, or is not, available. For a particular management question, the population, intervention, and outcome should be sufficiently similar across studies that a similar magnitude of effect is plausible. Guideline developers should specify the relative importance of the outcomes before gathering the evidence and again when evidence summaries are complete. In considering the importance of a surrogate outcome, authors should rate the importance of the patient-important outcome for which the surrogate is a substitute and subsequently rate down the quality of evidence for indirectness of outcome.

In the GRADE approach, randomized trials start as high-quality evidence and observational studies as low-quality evidence, but both can be rated down if most of the relevant evidence comes from studies that suffer from a high risk of bias. Well-established limitations of randomized trials include failure to conceal allocation, failure to blind, loss to follow-up, and failure to appropriately consider the intention-to-treat principle. More recently recognized limitations include stopping early for apparent benefit and selective reporting of outcomes according to the results. Key limitations of observational studies include use of inappropriate controls and failure to adequately adjust for prognostic imbalance. Risk of bias may vary across outcomes (e.g., loss to follow-up may be far less for all-cause mortality than for quality of life), a consideration that many systematic reviews ignore. In deciding whether to rate down for risk of bias—whether for randomized trials or observational studies—authors should not take an approach that averages across studies. Rather, for any individual outcome, when there are some studies with a high risk, and some with a low risk of bias, they should consider including only the studies with a lower risk of bias.

To design a functional, patient-centered model of patient complexity with practical applicability to analytic design and clinical practice. Existing literature on patient complexity has mainly identified its components descriptively and in isolation, lacking clarity as to their combined functions in disrupting care or to how complexity changes over time. The authors developed a cumulative complexity model, which integrates existing literature and emphasizes how clinical and social factors accumulate and interact to complicate patient care. A narrative literature review is used to explicate the model. The model emphasizes a core, patient-level mechanism whereby complicating factors impact care and outcomes: the balance between patient workload of demands and patient capacity to address demands. Workload encompasses the demands on the patient's time and energy, including demands of treatment, self-care, and life in general. Capacity concerns ability to handle work (e.g., functional morbidity, financial/social resources, literacy). Workload-capacity imbalances comprise the mechanism driving patient complexity. Treatment and illness burdens serve as feedback loops, linking negative outcomes to further imbalances, such that complexity may accumulate over time. With its components largely supported by existing literature, the model has implications for analytic design, clinical epidemiology, and clinical practice.

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adolescents report disparate rates of substance use, and often consume more cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy than their heterosexual peers. It is therefore crucial to understand the risk factors for substance use among LGB adolescents, particularly those unique to their minority status. In an effort to organize the current knowledge of minority-related risk factors for substance use among LGB youth, this study presents results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published research literature. Results from 12 unique studies of LGB youth indicated that the strongest risk factors for substance use were victimization, lack of supportive environments, psychological stress, internalizing/externalizing problem behavior, negative disclosure reactions, and housing status. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for targeted intervention programs that address minority stress risk factors for substance use among LGB youth.

This study examined homemade masks as an alternative to commercial face masks. Several household materials were evaluated for the capacity to block bacterial and viral aerosols. Twenty-one healthy volunteers made their own face masks from cotton t-shirts; the masks were then tested for fit. The number of microorganisms isolated from coughs of healthy volunteers wearing their homemade mask, a surgical mask, or no mask was compared using several air-sampling techniques. The median-fit factor of the homemade masks was one-half that of the surgical masks. Both masks significantly reduced the number of microorganisms expelled by volunteers, although the surgical mask was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission than the homemade mask. Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals, but it would be better than no protection.

Public health programs succeed and survive if organizations and coalitions address 6 key areas. (1) Innovation to develop the evidence base for action; (2) a technical package of a limited number of high-priority, evidence-based interventions that together will have a major impact; (3) effective performance management, especially through rigorous, real-time monitoring, evaluation, and program improvement; (4) partnerships and coalitions with public- and private-sector organizations; (5) communication of accurate and timely information to the health care community, decision makers, and the public to effect behavior change and engage civil society; and (6) political commitment to obtain resources and support for effective action. Programs including smallpox eradication, tuberculosis control, tobacco control, polio eradication, and others have made progress by addressing these 6 areas.

Objectives. We examined the effectiveness of the Sources of Strength suicide prevention program in enhancing protective factors among peer leaders trained to conduct schoolwide messaging and among the full population of high school students. Methods. Eighteen high schools—6 metropolitan and 12 rural—were randomly assigned to immediate intervention or the wait-list control. Surveys were administered at baseline and 4 months after program implementation to 453 peer leaders in all schools and to 2675 students selected as representative of the 12 rural schools. Results. Training improved the peer leaders' adaptive norms regarding suicide, their connectedness to adults, and their school engagement, with the largest gains for those entering with the least adaptive norms. Trained peer leaders in larger schools were 4 times as likely as were untrained peer leaders to refer a suicidal friend to an adult. Among students, the intervention increased perceptions of adult support for suicidal youths and the acceptability of seeking help. Perception of adult support increased most in students with a history of suicidal ideation. Conclusions. Sources of Strength is the first suicide prevention program involving peer leaders to enhance protective factors associated with reducing suicide at the school population level.