Integrating Intimate Partner Violence Screening Programs in Primary Care: Results from a Hybrid-II Implementation-Effectiveness RCT.

INTRODUCTION: The Veterans Health Administration initiated implementation facilitation to integrate intimate partner screening programs in primary care. This study investigates implementation facilitation's impact on implementation and clinical effectiveness outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: A cluster randomized, stepped-wedge, hybrid-II implementation-effectiveness trial (January 2021-April 2022) was conducted amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Implementation facilitation was applied at 9 Veterans Health Administration facilities, staged across 2 waves. Participants were all women receiving care at participating primary care clinics 3 months before (pre-implementation facilitation n=2,272) and 9 months after initiation of implementation facilitation (implementation facilitation n=5,149). INTERVENTION: Implementation facilitation included an operations-funded external facilitator working for 6 months with a facility-funded internal facilitator from participating clinics. The pre-implementation facilitation period comprised implementation as usual in the Veterans Health Administration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were changes in (1) reach of intimate partner violence (IPV) screening programs among eligible women (i.e., those seen within participating clinics during the assessment period; implementation outcome) and (2) disclosure rates among screened women (effectiveness outcome). Secondary outcomes included disclosure rates among all eligible women and post-screening psychosocial service use. Administrative data were analyzed. RESULTS: For primary outcomes, women seen during the implementation facilitation period were nearly 3 times more likely to be screened for IPV than women seen during the pre-implementation facilitation period (OR=2.70, 95% CI=2.46, 2.97). Women screened during the implementation facilitation period were not more likely to disclose IPV than those screened during the pre-implementation facilitation period (OR=1.14, 95% CI=0.86, 1.51). For secondary outcomes, owing to increased reach of screening during implementation facilitation, women seen during the implementation facilitation period were more likely to disclose IPV than those seen during the pre-implementation facilitation period (OR=2.09, 95% CI=1.52, 2.86). Women screened during implementation facilitation were more likely to use post-screening psychosocial services than those screened during pre-implementation facilitation (OR=1.29, 95% CI=1.06, 1.57). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that implementation facilitation may be a promising strategy for increasing the reach of IPV screening programs in primary care, thereby increasing IPV detection and strengthening connections to support services among the patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT04106193.

Rationale, design and methods of VA-BRAVE: a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of two formulations of buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder in veterans.

BACKGROUND: To address the US opioid epidemic, there is an urgent clinical need to provide persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) with effective medication treatments for OUD (MOUD). Formulations of sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone (SL-BUP/NLX) are considered the standard of care for OUD including within the Veterans Healthcare Administration (VHA). However, poor retention on MOUD undermines its effectiveness. Long-acting injectable monthly buprenorphine (INJ-BUP) (e.g., Sublocade®) has the potential to improve retention and therefore reduce opioid use and overdose. Designing and conducting studies for OUD pose unique challenges. The strategies and solutions to some of these considerations in designing Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) 2014, Buprenorphine for Treating Opioid Use Disorder in Veterans (VA-BRAVE), a randomized, 20-site, clinical effectiveness trial comparing INJ-BUP to SL-BUP/NLX conducted within the VHA may provide valuable guidance for others confronted with similar investigation challenges. METHODS: This 52-week, parallel group, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluates the comparative effectiveness of two current FDA-approved formulations of buprenorphine: (1) daily SL-BUP/NLX vs. (2) monthly (28-day) INJ-BUP for Veterans with moderate to severe OUD (n = 952). The primary outcomes are (1) retention in MOUD and (2) opioid abstinence. Secondary outcomes include measures of other drug use, psychiatric symptoms, medical outcomes including prevalence rates of HIV, hepatitis B and C as well as social outcomes (housing instability, criminal justice involvement), service utilization and cost-effectiveness. Special considerations in conducting a comparative effectiveness trial with this population and during COVID-19 pandemic were also included. DISCUSSION: The evaluation of the extended-release formulation of buprenorphine compared to the standard sublingual formulation in real-world VHA settings is of paramount importance in addressing the opioid epidemic. The extent to which this new treatment facilitates retention, decreases opioid use, and prevents severe sequelae of OUD has not been studied in any long-term trial to date. Positive findings in this trial could lead to widespread adoption of MOUD, and, if proven superior INJ-BUP, by clinicians throughout the VHA and beyond. This treatment has the potential to reduce opioid use among Veterans, improve medical, psychological, and social outcomes, and save lives at justifiable cost. Trial registration Registered at Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04375033.

COVID-19 INSIGHTS AND LINGUISTIC METHODS

The emergence of COVID-19 affects the world population in many ways, resulting in its own specialised discourse. In addition to providing a source of data for analysis, this discourse has also led to a rethinking of multifarious research methods. This section presents a series of articles by scholars from different parts of the world with macro- and micro-linguistic perspectives, ranging from corpus-based analysis to content analysis studies. At the macro level, these scholars explored ways through which government bodies communicate with the public. Official announcements, parliamentary proceedings and COVID-19-related corpora are examined and a comparative textual analysis between the Malaysian and British governments is provided. At the micro level, the scholars analysed selected corpora with lexical, semantic, and discourse foci and personal posts of short narratives and photos to encapsulate meanings from human life and experience. The main takeaway from these studies is the application of a wide range of methods for different focus and perspectives that may be customised to the researcher's unique context.