Protocol for community-driven selection of strategies to implement evidence-based practices to reduce opioid overdoses in the HEALing Communities Study: a trial to evaluate a community-engaged intervention in Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York and Ohio.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid-involved overdose deaths continue to surge in many communities, despite numerous evidence-based practices (EBPs) that exist to prevent them. The HEALing Communities Study (HCS) was launched to develop and test an intervention (ie, Communities That HEAL (CTH)) that supports communities in expanding uptake of EBPs to reduce opioid-involved overdose deaths. This paper describes a protocol for a process foundational to the CTH intervention through which community coalitions select strategies to implement EBPs locally. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CTH is being implemented in 67 communities (randomised to receive the intervention) in four states in partnership with coalitions (one per community). Coalitions must select at least five strategies, including one to implement each of the following EBPs: (a) overdose education and naloxone distribution; expanded (b) access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), (c) linkage to MOUD, (d) retention in MOUD and (e) safer opioid prescribing/dispensing. Facilitated by decision aid tools, the community action planning process includes (1) data-driven goal setting, (2) discussion and prioritisation of EBP strategies, (3) selection of EBP strategies and (4) identification of next steps. Following review of epidemiologic data and information on existing local services, coalitions set goals and discuss, score and/or rank EBP strategies based on feasibility, appropriateness within the community context and potential impact on reducing opioid-involved overdose deaths with a focus on three key sectors (healthcare, behavioural health and criminal justice) and high-risk/vulnerable populations. Coalitions then select EBP strategies through consensus or majority vote and, subsequently, suggest or choose agencies with which to partner for implementation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The HCS protocol was approved by a central Institutional Review Board (Advarra). Results of the action planning process will be disseminated in academic conferences and peer-reviewed journals, online and print media, and in meetings with community stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04111939.

Model and approach for assessing implementation context and fidelity in the HEALing Communities Study.

BACKGROUND: In response to the U.S. opioid epidemic, the HEALing (Helping to End Addiction Long-termSM) Communities Study (HCS) is a multisite, wait-listed, community-level cluster-randomized trial that aims to test the novel Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention, in 67 communities. CTH will expand an integrated set of evidence-based practices (EBPs) across health care, behavioral health, justice, and other community-based settings to reduce opioid overdose deaths. We present the rationale for and adaptation of the RE-AIM/PRISM framework and methodological approach used to capture the CTH implementation context and to evaluate implementation fidelity. METHODS: HCS measures key domains of the internal and external CTH implementation context with repeated annual surveys and qualitative interviews with community coalition members and key stakeholders. Core constructs of fidelity include dosage, adherence, quality, and program differentiation-the adaptation of the CTH intervention to fit each community's needs. Fidelity measures include a monthly CTH checklist, collation of artifacts produced during CTH activities, coalition and workgroup attendance, and coalition meeting minutes. Training and technical assistance delivered by the research sites to the communities are tracked monthly. DISCUSSION: To help attenuate the nation's opioid epidemic, the adoption of EBPs must be increased in communities. The HCS represents one of the largest and most complex implementation research experiments yet conducted. Our systematic examination of implementation context and fidelity will significantly advance understanding of how to best evaluate community-level implementation of EBPs and assess relations among implementation context, fidelity, and intervention impact.

Public and Opinion Leader Willingness to Fund Obesity-Focused Policies in Kansas.

Obesity increases the risk for leading causes of death, including cardiovascular disease and some cancers. Midwestern and southern states have the highest obesity rates-in Kansas, one in every three adults is obese. We compared the willingness of Kansas adults and opinion leaders to pay more in taxes to fund obesity prevention policies. In 2014, we asked a representative sample of 2,203 Kansas adults (response rate 15.7%) and 912 opinion leaders (response rate 55%) drawn from elected office and other sectors, including business and health, whether they would pay an additional $50 in annual taxes to support five policies that improve access to healthy foods and opportunities for physical activity. We used adjusted Wald tests to compare public and opinion leaders' responses, and regression analysis to assess whether differences in respondents' gender, age, location (urban/rural), race/ethnicity, and political stance affected results. Adjusting for demographic differences, Kansas adults were more willing than opinion leaders to pay $50 in taxes for each of the five policy interventions. This study demonstrates a willingness among residents of a fiscally conservative state to pay increased taxes for policies that could reduce population obesity rates. Health professionals, including nurses, can use these findings to educate policy makers in Kansas and geopolitically similar states about widespread public support for obesity prevention policies. Public health and other nurses could also apply our methods to assess support for obesity prevention policies in their jurisdictions.

Measuring public health practice and outcomes in chronic disease: a call for coordination.

A strategic opportunity exists to coordinate public health systems and services researchers' efforts to develop local health department service delivery measures and the efforts of divisions within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP) to establish outcome indicators for public health practice in chronic disease. Several sets of outcome indicators developed by divisions within NCCDPHP and intended for use by state programs can be tailored to assess outcomes of interventions within smaller geographic areas or intervention settings. Coordination of measurement efforts could potentially allow information to flow from the local to the state to the federal level, enhancing program planning, accountability, and even subsequent funding for public health practice.