Search

This chapter reviews ways in which behaviour relates to the spectrum of health and disease determinants, from environmental to genetic, in shaping health outcomes. It builds on the previous chapters in recognizing the powerful influence of socioeconomic and cultural factors, especially poverty and discrimination, in influencing both behaviour and health. Many commentaries in the past four decades have attempted to correct the overemphasis on individual behavioural determinants of health by discounting and sometimes disparaging any focus on individual behaviour or personal responsibility in disease prevention and health promotion. This chapter seeks a middle ground, building on the growing understanding of the ecological and cultural context of the behaviour–health relationship. It seeks to integrate that knowledge in an approach to public health that acknowledges the reciprocal determinism of behavioural, environmental, and biological determinants rather than minimizing the importance of behaviour in these complex interactions.

Using practice-based evidence from the field to adapt evidence-based practices in guiding interventions in health promotion and public health has gained some traction in recent years. Although there are multiple sources of practice-based evidence, three—participatory research and Practice-Based Research Networks, systematic reviews and systems science—comprise the most promising potential candidates for collecting and analyzing organized evidence that demonstrates relevance, applicability or generalizability, and effectiveness. This paper argues for generating more diversity and complementarity in the methods and sources of evidence for epidemiology, public health and health promotion, if we are to improve population health and eliminate health disparities.

Background Current methods for assessing strength of evidence prioritize the contributions of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The objective of this study was to characterize strength of evidence (SOE) tools in recent use, identify their application to lifestyle interventions for improved longevity, vitality, or successful aging, and to assess implications of the findings. Methods The search strategy was created in PubMed and modified as needed for four additional databases: Embase, AnthropologyPlus, PsycINFO, and Ageline, supplemented by manual searching. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of intervention trials or observational studies relevant to lifestyle intervention were included if they used a specified SOE tool. Data was collected for each SOE tool. Conditions necessary for assigning the highest SOE grading and treatment of prospective cohort studies within each SOE rating framework were summarized. The expert panel convened to discuss the implications of findings for assessing evidence in the domain of lifestyle medicine. Results and conclusions A total of 15 unique tools were identified. Ten were tools developed and used by governmental agencies or other equivalent professional bodies and were applicable in a variety of settings. Of these 10, four require consistent results from RCTs of high quality to award the highest rating of evidence. Most SOE tools include prospective cohort studies only to note their secondary contribution to overall SOE as compared to RCTs. We developed a new construct, Hierarchies of Evidence Applied to Lifestyle Medicine (HEALM), to illustrate the feasibility of a tool based on the specific contributions of diverse research methods to understanding lifetime effects of health behaviors. Assessment of evidence relevant to lifestyle medicine requires a potential adaptation of SOE approaches when outcomes and/or exposures obviate exclusive or preferential reliance on RCTs. This systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO [CRD42018082148]. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0811-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Assessing the extent to which public health research findings can be causally interpreted continues to be a critical endeavor. In this symposium, we invited several researchers to review issues related to causal inference in social epidemiology and environmental science and to discuss the importance of external validity in public health. Together, this set of articles provides an integral overview of the strengths and limitations of applying causal inference frameworks and related approaches to a variety of public health problems, for both internal and external validity.

Highlights • Sustaining successful interventions in non-research settings is challenging. • Practical Robust Implementation Sustainability Model (PRISM) informs sustainability. • We evaluate factors influencing sustainability of PreView, through the lens of PRISM. • Lessons learned from PreView and PRISM can inform future sustainability efforts., Although many trials of cancer screening interventions evaluate efficacy and effectiveness, less research focuses on how to sustain interventions in non-research settings, which limit the potential reach of these interventions. Identifying the factors that influence the potential for sustainability is critical. We evaluate the factors influencing sustainability of PreView, a Cancer Screening Intervention, within the context of the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM). PRISM includes organizational and patient perspectives of the intervention as well as characteristics of the organizational and patient recipients. It considers how the program or intervention design, external environment, implementation, and sustainability infrastructure and the recipients influence program adoption, implementation, and maintenance. We evaluate the attempts at sustainability of PreView within the constructs of PRISM. Encouraging patients to use PreView was more difficult outside of a clinical trial. Organizational perspectives on how the intervention fit in with other goals, patient perspectives on how the intervention is individualized (i.e. being able to choose which cancer screening to address) and focused on barriers, patient characteristics (i.e. having multiple comorbidities making cancer screening less of a priority), organizational characteristics (i.e. middle managers having competing responsibilities), external environment influences (i.e. reimbursement for achieving certain cancer screening goals), and sustainability infrastructure all affect the likelihood of PreView being sustained in clinical practice. Despite advance planning for sustainability, adapting interventions to achieve sustainability is difficult. Lessons learned from evaluating PreView within the PRISM model can inform future sustainability efforts.

Context Social and behavioral sciences, a cross-disciplinary field that examines the interaction among behavioral, biological, environmental, and social factors, has contributed immensely to some public health achievements over the last century. Through collaboration with community organizations and partners, social and behavioral scientists have conducted numerous program interventions involving community engagement and advocacy efforts at the local, state, federal, and international levels. Contributions of social and behavioral sciences This article traces select historical underpinnings of the applications of social and behavioral sciences theories and evidence to public health and highlights 4 areas in which health education specialists have distinctly contributed to public health achievements by building on theory and evidence. Applied social and behavioral sciences have formed the basis of various health education interventions. These 4 areas include the following: (1) Theory, Model Development, and the Professionalization of Health Education; (2) Participation and Community Engagement; (3) Health Communication; and (4) Advocacy and Policy. Discussion We present contemporary challenges and recommendations for strengthening the theory, research, and practice of health education within the context of social and behavioral sciences in addressing emerging public health issues.

BACKGROUND: Women aged 50–70 should receive breast, cervical (until age 65), and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening; men aged 50–70 should receive CRC screening and should discuss prostate cancer screening (PSA). PreView, an interactive, individually tailored Video Doctor Plus Provider Alert Intervention, adresses all cancers for which average risk 50–70-year-old individuals are due for screening or screening discussion. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 6 clinical sites. Participants were randomized to PreView or a video about healthy lifestyle. Intervention group participants completed PreView before their appointment and their clinicians received a “Provider Alert.” Primary outcomes were receipt of mammography, Pap tests (with or without HPV testing), CRC screening (FIT in last year or colonoscopy in last 10 years), and PSA screening discussion. Additional outcomes included breast, cervical, and CRC screening discussion. RESULTS: A total of 508 individuals participated, 257 in the control group and 251 in the intervention group. Screening rates were relatively high at baseline. Compared with baseline screening rates, there was no significant increase in mammography or Pap smear screening, and a nonsignificant increase (18% vs 12%) in CRC screening. Intervention participants reported a higher rate of PSA discussion than did control participants (58% vs 36%: P < 0.01). Similar increases were seen in discussions about mammography, cervical cancer, and CRC screening. CONCLUSION: In clinics with relatively high overall screening rates at baseline, PreView did not result in significant increases in breast, cervical, or CRC screening. PreView led to an increase in PSA screening discussion. Clinician-patient discussion of all cancer screenings significantly increased, suggesting that interventions like PreView may be most useful when discussion of the pros and cons of screening is recommended and/or with patients reluctant to undergo screening. Future research should investigate PreView’s impact on those who are hesitant or reluctant to undergo screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02264782 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-019-05438-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Timely implementation of principles of evidence-based public health (EBPH) is critical for bridging the gap between discovery of new knowledge and its application. Public health organizations need sufficient capacity (the availability of resources, structures, and workforce to plan, deliver, and evaluate the preventive dose of an evidence-based intervention) to move science to practice. We review principles of EBPH, the importance of capacity building to advance evidence-based approaches, promising approaches for capacity building, and future areas for research and practice. Although there is general agreement among practitioners and scientists on the importance of EBPH, there is less clarity on the definition of evidence, how to find it, and how, when, and where to use it. Capacity for EBPH is needed among both individuals and organizations. Capacity can be strengthened via training, use of tools, technical assistance, assessment and feedback, peer networking, and incentives. Modest investments in EBPH capacity building will foster more effective public health practice.

Thirty years after expressing concerns about the translation and communication of science to the public and to policy makers, this reflection finds that the same issues face public health education perhaps even more urgently today with the advent of politicians who actively dispute science, and a public that has voted in support of their campaign promises to repeal and replace laws that provided health care and protection from global warming.

Two contrasting reviews (authored by Abrams et al. and Glantz & Bareham) in this volume have reached opposing conclusions on the effects of electronic cigarettes in a debate that is dividing the scientific and professional communities that have devoted careers to controlling the manufacture, advertising, sale, and use of combustible cigarettes. The research on the types, degree, and extent of harm from e-cigarettes is far from complete and, together with trends in teenage smoking and vaping, has raised new questions and prospects about the potential benefits that the new electronic products offer smokers of combustible cigarettes in quitting or at least cutting back on the known risks associated with the traditional forms of smoking. The rapidly morphing forms, constituents, promotions, and uses of the electronic varieties of the new nicotine delivery products (in this case electronic cigarettes) make research on their biological and behavioral effects moving targets. The two sides of this argument have produced a global divide on policy strategies.

Author(s): Moreno, Gala D; Schmidt, Laura A; Ritchie, Lorrene D; McCulloch, Charles E; Cabana, Michael D; Brindis, Claire D; Green, Lawrence W; Altman, Emily A; Patel, Anisha I | Abstract: IntroductionPromoting water consumption among children in schools is a promising intervention to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake and achieve healthful weight. To date, no studies in the United States have examined how a school-based water access and promotion intervention affects students' beverage and food intake both in and out of school and weight gain over time. The Water First trial is intended to evaluate these interventions.MethodsInformed by the PRECEDE-PROCEED model and Social Cognitive Theory, the Water First intervention includes: 1) installation of lead-free water stations in cafeterias, physical activity spaces, and high-traffic common areas in lower-income public elementary schools, 2) provision of cups/reusable water bottles for students, and 3) a 6-month healthy beverage education campaign. A five year-long cluster randomized controlled trial of 26 low-income public elementary schools in the San Francisco Bay Area is examining how Water First impacts students' consumption of water, caloric intake from foods and beverages, and BMI z-score and overweight/obesity prevalence, from baseline to 7nmonths and 15nmonths after the start of the study. Intervention impact on outcomes will be examined using a difference-in-differences approach with mixed-effects regression accounting for the clustering of students in schools and classrooms.DiscussionThis paper describes the rationale, study design, and protocol for the Water First study. If the intervention is effective, findings will inform best practices for implementing school water policies, as well as the development of more expansive policies and programs to promote and improve access to drinking water in schools.

This reflection on the academic and practice careers—my own and some notable health promotion professors’—supports my suggestions about what makes good teaching and research faculty members in professional schools seeking to prepare next generations of practitioners for health education and health promotion careers. From the perspective of pedagogy in health promotion, the preparation of students for their roles in practice—in whatever blend of policy, planning, management, delivery, or evaluation of programs—should emanate, where possible, from field experience and reality-tested theoretical and evidence-based precepts. Just as usable evidence-based practices need to include practice-based evidence, so too must usable pedagogy for practitioners be built on periodic exposure and experience of instructors in contemporary practice. The concept of “turnstile careers” is introduced to address this need for periodic immersion of faculty in practice positions with responsibility for programs.

Broad changes in normative health behavior are critical to overcoming many of the contemporary challenges to public health. Reduction in tobacco use during the last third of the 20th century—one of the greatest improvements in public health—illustrates such change. The culture change from accommodation to intolerance of smoking is irrefutable. The role of health communication in predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing the normative social changes that ensued, however, has been less well documented with the linear, cause-and-effect methods of controlled intervention research. We examine the role of mass communication in the cultural transformation that reduced tobacco use, concluding that its influence on reduction in tobacco use follows a pathway as much through secondary transmissions within groups of people as through direct influence on individuals.

Vaccinations have been shown repeatedly to be extremely safe with low incidence of complications. Given the rarity, these adverse events, they must be reported and examined cautiously. This case report illustrates the first case of an adult presenting with Wells syndrome that developed soon after vaccination with the thiomersal, a common preservative, containing influenza vaccine. Wells syndrome, also known as eosinophilic cellulitis, is an uncommon dermatologic condition of unknown etiology. Lesions in patients with Wells syndrome (eosinophilic cellulitis) progress over a few days to become large indurated plaques with associated edema and erythema. Although the etiology of Wells syndrome remains unknown, certain precipitants have been described in the literature, including but not limited to parasitic infections, contact dermatitis, Churg-Strauss disease and various medications. This article describes a possible sensitivity to thiomersal, as well as describes other cases that have reported a similar sensitivity secondary to receiving thiomersal-containing vaccines.

The FluFIT program is an evidence-based intervention that leverages the time of annual influenza vaccination activities as an opportunity to offer colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical testing to eligible adults between the ages of 50 and 75 years. Begun as a pilot program for a family medicine residency-based flu shot clinic in San Francisco in 2005, the FluFIT program has since been evaluated and implemented successfully in a wide variety of clinical settings throughout the United States. This case study describes the process of designing and testing a clinical intervention with the goal of implementation. Important steps included an initial needs assessment identifying the capabilities and opportunities for changing the behavior of clinical teams, as well as broadly conceived and continuously sustained stakeholder engagement at all stages of program design, evaluation, dissemination, and implementation.

This reflection is on a health education professional’s rotation from professor in a school of public health to a government position and back parallels that of Professor Howard Koh’s journey to Assistant Secretary of Health, one level higher in the same federal bureaucracy. We both acknowledge the steep learning curve and some bureaucratic hassles and mazes that can attend government service, but similarly conclude that “. . . it was worth it.” In this personalized case, I weigh some of the specific learning experiences and challenges I faced while in the government against the needs of the field of health promotion for more such revolving-door experiences among academic public health professionals. From my argument that to get more evidence-based practice we need more practice-based evidence, I conclude that more experience in practice among those returning to academia will render their teaching and research more relevant to the needs for evidence in policy and practice.

Motor vehicle safety and tobacco control are among the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As the number of miles traveled in the United States multiplied 10 times from the 1920s to the 1990s, the annual motor vehicle crash death rate per vehicle mile traveled decreased by 90%. Similarly, tobacco-related deaths from heart disease, stroke, and cancer were rapidly mounting over the first two thirds of the 20th century. Then, in the last third of the century, tobacco consumption decreased by more than 50%, and rates of heart disease and stroke deaths, and later cancer deaths, declined similarly. This analysis addresses the central question of what lessons can be learned from these success stories that will help public health professionals successfully tackle new and emerging health behavior problems of today and tomorrow? Surveillance, research, multilevel interventions, environmental modifications, and strong policies were key to reducing motor vehicle- and tobacco-related health problems. Generating public support and advocacy, and changing social norms also played critical roles in promoting the safer and smoke-free behaviors. Lessons learned include the need for evidence-based practices and interventions that are ecologically comprehensive with an emphasis on changing environmental determinants and capitalizing on the concept of reciprocal determinism. The analysis concludes with a description of how the PRECEDE-PROCEED planning framework can be used to apply the lessons from motor vehicle safety and tobacco control to other public health threats.

Efforts to change policies and the environments in which people live, work, and play have gained increasing attention over the past several decades. Yet health promotion frameworks that illustrate the complex processes that produce health-enhancing structural changes are limited. Building on the experiences of health educators, community activists, and community-based researchers described in this supplement and elsewhere, as well as several political, social, and behavioral science theories, we propose a new framework to organize our thinking about producing policy, environmental, and other structural changes. We build on the social ecological model, a framework widely employed in public health research and practice, by turning it inside out, placing health-related and other social policies and environments at the center, and conceptualizing the ways in which individuals, their social networks, and organized groups produce a community context that fosters healthy policy and environmental development. We conclude by describing how health promotion practitioners and researchers can foster structural change by (1) conveying the health and social relevance of policy and environmental change initiatives, (2) building partnerships to support them, and (3) promoting more equitable distributions of the resources necessary for people to meet their daily needs, control their lives, and freely participate in the public sphere.

This chapter raises questions about the reliability of much “evidence-based practice” disseminated from the original studies and systematic reviews of those studies, insofar as they were often conducted and reviewed with inadequate attention to external validity. Important issues are raised for dissemination and implementation researchers. Indeed, the pressure on investigators to provide for increasingly rigorous controls on threats to internal validity, and to exclude studies that fall below standards for internal validity, has made many such sources of evidence more suspect in their external validity and less credible to the practitioners or policymakers who would adopt them. Greater attention is needed to ways to incorporate considerations of external validity into studies and in systematic reviews of studies to produce more generalizable evidence, and greater attention to practice-based evidence that can complement the more formal evidence-based practices in the process of implementing and evaluating the dissemination and implementation process

Context Health communication campaigns including mass media and health-related product distribution have been used to reduce mortality and morbidity through behavior change. The intervention is defined as having two core components reflecting two social marketing principles: (1) promoting behavior change through multiple communication channels, one being mass media, and (2) distributing a free or reduced-price product that facilitates adoption and maintenance of healthy behavior change, sustains cessation of harmful behaviors, or protects against behavior-related disease or injury. Evidence acquisition Using methods previously developed for the Community Guide, a systematic review (search period, January 1980–December 2009) was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of health communication campaigns that use multiple channels, including mass media, and distribute health-related products. The primary outcome of interest was use of distributed health-related products. Evidence synthesis Twenty-two studies that met Community Guide quality criteria were analyzed in 2010. Most studies showed favorable behavior change effects on health-related product use (a median increase of 8.4 percentage points). By product category, median increases in desired behaviors ranged from 4.0 percentage points for condom promotion and distribution campaigns to 10.0 percentage points for smoking-cessation campaigns. Conclusions Health communication campaigns that combine mass media and other communication channels with distribution of free or reduced-price health-related products are effective in improving healthy behaviors. This intervention is expected to be applicable across U.S. demographic groups, with appropriate population targeting. The ability to draw more specific conclusions about other important social marketing practices is constrained by limited reporting of intervention components and characteristics.

The usual remedy suggested for bridging the science-to-practice gap is to improve the efficiency of disseminating the evidence-based practices to practitioners. This reflection on the gap takes the position that it is the relevance and fit of the evidence with the majority of practices that limit its applicability and application in health promotion and related behavioural, community and population-level interventions where variations in context, values and norms make uniform interventions inappropriate. To make the evidence more relevant and actionable to practice settings and populations will require reforms at many points in the research-to-practice pipeline. These points in the pipeline are described and remedies for them suggested.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize strength of evidence (SOE) tools in recent use, identify their application to lifestyle medicine, and to assess implications of the findings. METHODS: The search strategy was created in PubMed and modified as needed for four additional databases: Embase, AnthropologyPlus, PsycINFO, and Ageline. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included if they used a specified SOE tool. There were seven interventions or exposures of interest: diet, exercise, stress, social relationships/support, addiction(s), sleep, and genetic-based factors with potential for epigenetic modification. Data was collected for each SOE tool and summarized in narrative form with regard to the conditions necessary for assigning the highest SOE grading and treatment of prospective cohort studies within each SOE rating framework was qualitatively summarized. The expert panel convened to discuss the findings and their implication for assessing evidence in the domain of lifestyle medicine. RESULTS: A total of 15 unique tools were identified. All tools rated SOE using three to five levels of evidence, with the exception of one that uses two levels. Ten were tools developed and used by governmental agencies or other equivalent professional bodies and were applicable in a variety of settings. Five require consistent results from RCTs of high quality to award the highest rating of evidence. Except for the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence, specific mention of cohort studies was made only to note their secondary contribution to overall SOE as compared to RCTs, unless RCTs were methodologically flawed. A new construct, Hierarchies of Evidence Applied to Lifestyle Medicine (HEALM), was developed to evaluate SOE for the lifetime effects of health behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: The best metric for SOE varies with research questions and the methods required to answer them. Assessment of evidence relevant to lifestyle medicine requires a potential adaptation of SOE approaches when outcomes and/or exposures obviate exclusive or preferential reliance on RCTs. FUNDING SOURCES: Supported by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, with additional funding from the Centers for Disease Control, grant 5U48DP005023–04. SUPPORTING TABLES, IMAGES AND/OR GRAPHS

Editors’ Note: We invited a sample of AJPM’s Editorial Board, supplement guest editors, and longtime colleagues and contributors to share their experiences and impressions of the impact of AJPM on their respective domains. We were particularly fond of Ken Powell’s analogy to being “tenders of the planted seed”—as planters, weeders, and harvesters—watching and nurturing the growth of AJPM, and have elected to lead with his commentary. In the mid-1940s my brothers and I helped our father tend our victory garden. We were suburbanites and our small garden shared a vacant lot with the concrete foundation of a home abandoned in mid-construction during the Depression. We helped plant, weed, and harvest the crops. I especially liked the tall stalks of sweet corn that grew taller than I was. Many years later, in the mid-1990s, I met a couple of other gardeners: Kevin Patrick and Doug Scutchfield visited the Centers for Disease Control (now the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) to discuss their plans as the editors of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. I was working in a Branch that was trying to understand the public health importance of regular physical activity, and they had the foresight to know we were planting some seeds in an important new area. I’m not sure that I had even heard of AJPM before their visit. A few years later, while the field of physical activity and public health continued to grow, I shifted my focus to violence and injury prevention. Once again, the team of Patrick and Scutchfield recognized the importance of this topic to the field of preventive medicine. By the turn of the century my work had shifted from the national to the state level. I tried to keep up with the literature by reading or scanning articles as I rode the subway to and from work. The Georgia Division of Public Health had no access to a library so I circulated my personal copy of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine to my team in the Chronic Disease and Injury Epidemiology Section because it contained by far the most articles of interest and practical application for us. Isn’t it interesting to watch things grow. Gardens, journals, and the fields of public health and preventive medicine.

Realist review has increased in popularity as a methodology for complex intervention assessment. Our experience suggests that the process of designing a realist review requires its customization to areas under investigation. To elaborate on this idea, we first describe the logic underpinning realist review and then present critical reflections on our application experience, organized in seven areas. These are the following: (1) the challenge of identifying middle range theory; (2) addressing heterogeneity and lack of conceptual clarity; (3) the challenge of appraising the quality of complex evidence; (4) the relevance of capturing unintended outcomes; (5) understanding the process of context, mechanism, and outcome (CMO) configuring; (6) incorporating middle-range theory in the CMO configuration process; and (7) using middle range theory to advance the conceptualization of outcomes - both visible and seemingly 'hidden'. One conclusion from our experience is that the degree of heterogeneity of the evidence base will determine whether theory can drive the development of review protocols from the outset, or will follow only after an intense period of data immersion. We hope that presenting a critical reflection on customizing realist review will convey how the methodology can be tailored to the often complex and idiosyncratic features of health research, leading to innovative evidence syntheses.

Background Increasingly, funders expect that public health researchers will include policy contributions as outcomes. Lack of agreement as to what constitutes a policy contribution of research provides little conceptual or implementation guidance to researchers who lack policy training, as well as to evaluators called on to assess "good" policy contribution. Purpose This study applies a previously developed policy framework to explore potential policy contributions from research conducted by 20 principal investigators of Salud America! , the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's (RWJF) Research Network to Prevent Obesity Among Latino Children. Methods The literature-driven "Policy Contribution Spectra" served as the conceptual framework to jointly develop 20 cases of potential policy contribution. Data collection included document reviews and interviews. Data analysis included within- and cross-case analyses, member checking, data triangulation, and expert reviews. Results Plotting all 20 projects on the Policy Contribution Spectra showed projects have the potential to contribute to policy across intervention types (e.g., needs assessment or applied research); levels (e.g., local or state); timing (e.g., before or after policy enactment); and outcomes (e.g., process action or health benefits). Potential policy contributions on the Spectra framework were shown as multidirectional; multilayered (e.g., simultaneous state and local action); and multidimensional (e.g., multiple strategies aimed at multiple stakeholders). Conclusions The Policy Contribution Spectra adds a useful policy lens to existing public health practice by enabling researchers, funders, advocates, and evaluators to visualize, reframe, discuss, and communicate with policymakers and the public to resolve important public health issues.

The misuse of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs by youth and young adults is a major public health challenge across nations and the world. This chapter reviews the extensive international research concerning the use of public policy approaches to reducing these problems associated with the use and misuse of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs. In general, wide differences arise in public policies both in the type of research undertaken and the practical application of policy approaches to reduce harm. For illegal drugs and for alcohol, research concerning public health effects has been associated with policies addressing specific control mechanisms, whereas many public health policy approaches for tobacco harm prevention have been multifaceted. Overall, the cumulative international evidence offers public health policy approaches with demonstrated potential to reduce harm from and use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs and can have specific effects for adolescents and young adults.

Over-reliance on decontextualized, standardized implementation of efficacy evidence has contributed to slow integration of evidence-based interventions into health policy and practice. This article describes an “evidence integration triangle” (EIT) to guide translation, implementation, prevention efforts, comparative effectiveness research, funding, and policymaking. The EIT emphasizes interactions among three related components needed for effective evidence implementation: (1) practical evidence-based interventions; (2) pragmatic, longitudinal measures of progress; and (3) participatory implementation processes. At the center of the EIT is active engagement of key stakeholders and scientific evidence and attention to the context in which a program is implemented. The EIT model is a straightforward framework to guide practice, research, and policy toward greater effectiveness and is designed to be applicable across multiple levels—from individual-focused and patient–provider interventions, to health systems and policy-level change initiatives.

CONTEXT: Participatory research (PR) is the co-construction of research through partnerships between researchers and people affected by and/or responsible for action on the issues under study. Evaluating the benefits of PR is challenging for a number of reasons: the research topics, methods, and study designs are heterogeneous; the extent of collaborative involvement may vary over the duration of a project and from one project to the next; and partnership activities may generate a complex array of both short- and long-term outcomes. METHODS: Our review team consisted of a collaboration among researchers and decision makers in public health, research funding, ethics review, and community-engaged scholarship. We identified, selected, and appraised a large-variety sample of primary studies describing PR partnerships, and in each stage, two team members independently reviewed and coded the literature. We used key realist review concepts (middle-range theory, demi-regularity, and context-mechanism-outcome configurations [CMO]) to analyze and synthesize the data, using the PR partnership as the main unit of analysis. FINDINGS: From 7,167 abstracts and 591 full-text papers, we distilled for synthesis a final sample of twenty-three PR partnerships described in 276 publications. The link between process and outcome in these partnerships was best explained using the middle-range theory of partnership synergy, which demonstrates how PR can (1) ensure culturally and logistically appropriate research, (2) enhance recruitment capacity, (3) generate professional capacity and competence in stakeholder groups, (4) result in productive conflicts followed by useful negotiation, (5) increase the quality of outputs and outcomes over time, (6) increase the sustainability of project goals beyond funded time frames and during gaps in external funding, and (7) create system changes and new unanticipated projects and activities. Negative examples illustrated why these outcomes were not a guaranteed product of PR partnerships but were contingent on key aspects of context. CONCLUSIONS: We used a realist approach to embrace the heterogeneity and complexity of the PR literature. This theory-driven synthesis identified mechanisms by which PR may add value to the research process. Using the middle-range theory of partnership synergy, our review confirmed findings from previous PR reviews, documented and explained some negative outcomes, and generated new insights into the benefits of PR regarding conflicts and negotiation between stakeholders, program sustainability and advancement, unanticipated project activity, and the generation of systemic change.

The promise of widespread implementation of efficacious interventions across the cancer continuum into routine practice and policy has yet to be realized. Multilevel influences, such as communities and families surrounding patients or health-care policies and organizations surrounding provider teams, may determine whether effective interventions are successfully implemented. Greater recognition of the importance of these influences in advancing (or hindering) the impact of single-level interventions has motivated the design and testing of multilevel interventions designed to address them. However, implementing research evidence from single- or multilevel interventions into sustainable routine practice and policy presents substantive challenges. Furthermore, relatively few multilevel interventions have been conducted along the cancer care continuum, and fewer still have been implemented, disseminated, or sustained in practice. The purpose of this chapter is, therefore, to illustrate and examine the concepts underlying the implementation and spread of multilevel interventions into routine practice and policy. We accomplish this goal by using a series of cancer and noncancer examples that have been successfully implemented and, in some cases, spread widely. Key concepts across these examples include the importance of phased implementation, recognizing the need for pilot testing, explicit engagement of key stakeholders within and between each intervention level; visible and consistent leadership and organizational support, including financial and human resources; better understanding of the policy context, fiscal climate, and incentives underlying implementation; explication of handoffs from researchers to accountable individuals within and across levels; ample integration of multilevel theories guiding implementation and evaluation; and strategies for long-term monitoring and sustainability.

Type 2 diabetes imposes a large and growing burden on the public's health. This burden, combined with the growing evidence for primary prevention from randomized controlled trials of structured lifestyle programs leads to recommendations to include caloric reduction, increased physical activity and specific assistance to patients in problem solving to achieve modest weight loss as well as pharmacotherapy. These recommendations demand exploration of new ways to implement such primary prevention strategies through more integrated community organization, medical practice and policy. The US experience with control of tobacco use and high blood pressure offers valuable lessons for policy, such as taxation on products, and for practice in a variety of settings, such as coordination of referrals for lifestyle supports. We acknowledge also some notable exceptions to their generalizability. This paper presents possible actions proposed by an expert panel, summarized in Table 1 as recommendations for immediate action, strategic action and research. The collaboration of primary care and public health systems will be required to make many of these recommendations a reality. This paper also provides information on the progress made in recent years by the Division of Diabetes Translation at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to implement or facilitate such integration of primary care and public health for primary prevention.

Community interventions are complex social processes that need to move beyond single interventions and outcomes at individual levels of short-term change. A scientific paradigm is emerging that supports collaborative, multilevel, culturally situated community interventions aimed at creating sustainable community-level impact. This paradigm is rooted in a deep history of ecological and collaborative thinking across public health, psychology, anthropology, and other fields of social science. The new paradigm makes a number of primary assertions that affect conceptualization of health issues, intervention design, and intervention evaluation. To elaborate the paradigm and advance the science of community intervention, we offer suggestions for promoting a scientific agenda, developing collaborations among professionals and communities, and examining the culture of science.