Expanding the Reach of Evidence-Based Self-Management Education and Physical Activity Interventions: Results of a Cross-Site Evaluation of State Health Departments.

Participation in community-based self-management education and physical activity interventions has been demonstrated to improve quality of life for those who have arthritis and other chronic diseases. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Arthritis Program funded 21 state health departments to expand the reach (defined as the number of people who participate in interventions) of 10 evidence-based interventions in community settings. The Arthritis Centralized Evaluation assessed the strategies and tactics used by state health departments to expand the reach of these evidence-based interventions. The evaluation compared and contrasted processes used by the states to expand reach. Engaging multisite delivery system partners, prioritizing reach, embedding interventions within partners' routine operations, and collaborating across chronic disease program areas were all dissemination strategies that were correlated with expanded intervention reach. However, states also encountered challenges that limited their ability to successfully engage delivery systems as partners. These barriers included difficulty identifying delivery system partners and the lengthy time periods partners needed to adopt and embed the interventions.

Experiences of a national sample of qualified addiction specialists who have and have not prescribed buprenorphine for opioid dependence.

The limited availability of medication-assisted treatment has created a treatment gap leaving many opioid dependent individuals without access to appropriate treatment. Survey data from a national random sample of 545 addictions physicians with waivers to provide buprenorphine treatment under The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 are presented. During the first year, an estimated 63,204 opioid dependent patients were treated with buprenorphine; many were dependent on prescription opioids and were new to drug treatment. Prescribing physicians reported high treatment effectiveness and patient satisfaction, with minimal adverse reactions or evidence of diversion. However, many waivered physicians had not provided buprenorphine treatment. Prescribers identified challenges such as induction logistics, recordkeeping requirements, the 30-patient limit, DEA involvement, and limited patient compliance. Buprenorphine treatment could potentially reduce the treatment gap by providing safe and effective treatment for opioid dependence and by attracting patients who do not typically seek care at opioid treatment programs.

Evaluation of Legs For Life National Screening and Awareness Program for Peripheral Vascular Disease: results of a follow-up survey of screening participants.

PURPOSE: The Legs For Life(R) National Screening and Awareness Program for Peripheral Vascular Disease (PVD) was launched in 1999. A critical component of the screening program was an independent evaluation to provide additional information about the results of the program. This evaluation considers the health education impacts of the screening program; participants' knowledge about appropriate providers; and some of the outcomes associated with the program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The evaluation is based on a representative sample of 700 individuals who participated in the screening program and responded to a six-page closed-ended mail questionnaire 6 months after the screening. The sample was drawn in a two-stage cluster. A sample of 1,000 individuals was drawn using random selection of low-risk participants and oversampling of all high- and medium-risk participants from 22 sites. RESULTS: More than 80% of the respondents remembered the name of the test (ankle-brachial index) given during the screening program. More than half the respondents reported being informed during the screening that leg pain when walking was a symptom of PVD, and 40% reported being told that numbness in the leg was a symptom. The majority of respondents were able to identify ways to prevent or slow the progression of PVD, whereas just under 50% were able to identify those individuals that would be at higher risk for PVD. Respondents most frequently identified vascular surgeons (42%), family or primary care physicians (22%), and cardiologists (19%) as the type of doctor to see for PVD treatment, whereas only 4.8% of screening participants recognized interventional radiologists as specialists appropriate to dealing with PVD. CONCLUSION: Evidence from participants in the Legs For Life(R) National Screening Program suggests that the program has met its initial goals of education, identification, and treatment for those identified with PVD. While many specialties manage this condition, the evaluation indicates there is much to be done in increasing the awareness of interventional radiologists and their role in the diagnosis and treatment of PVD.