Search

BackgroundHydroxyurea is an evidence-based disease-modifying therapy for sickle cell disease (SCD) but is underutilized. The Integration of Mobile Health into Sickle Cell Disease Care to Increase Hydroxyurea Utilization (meSH) multicenter study leveraged mHealth to deliver targeted interventions to patients and providers. SCD studies often underenroll; and recruitment strategies in the SCD population are not widely studied. Unanticipated events can negatively impact enrollment, making it important to study strategies that ensure adequate study accrual. ObjectiveThe goal of this study was to evaluate enrollment barriers and the impact of modified recruitment strategies among patients and providers in the meSH study in response to a global emergency. MethodsRecruitment was anticipated to last 2 months for providers and 6 months for patients. The recruitment strategies used with patients and providers, new recruitment strategies, and recruitment rates were captured and compared. To document recruitment adaptations and their reasons, study staff responsible for recruitment completed an open-ended 9-item questionnaire eliciting challenges to recruitment and strategies used. Themes were extrapolated using thematic content analysis. ResultsTotal enrollment across the 7 sites included 89 providers and 293 patients. The study acceptance rate was 85.5% (382/447) for both patients and providers. The reasons patients declined participation were most frequently a lack of time and interest in research, while providers mostly declined because of self-perceived high levels of SCD expertise, believing they did not need the intervention. Initially, recruitment involved an in-person invitation to participate during clinic visits (patients), staff meetings (providers), or within the office (providers). We identified several important recruitment challenges, including (1) lack of interest in research, (2) lack of human resources, (3) unavailable physical space for recruitment activities, and (4) lack of documentation to verify eligibility. Adaptive strategies were crucial to alleviate enrollment disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These included remote approaching and consenting (eg, telehealth, email, and telephone) for patients and providers. Additionally, for patients, recruitment was enriched by simplification of enrollment procedures (eg, directly approaching patients without a referral from the provider) and a multitouch method (ie, warm introductions with flyers, texts, and patient portal messages). We found that patient recruitment rates were similar between in-person and adapted (virtual with multitouch) approaches (167/200, 83.5% and 126/143, 88.1%, respectively; P=.23). However, for providers, recruitment was significantly higher for in-person vs remote recruitment (48/50, 96% and 41/54, 76%, respectively, P

Diabetes is a significant population health threat. Evidence-based interventions, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Diabetes Prevention Program and diabetes self-management education and support programs, can help prevent, delay, or manage the disease. However, participation is suboptimal, especially among populations who are at an increased risk of developing diabetes. Evaluations of programs reaching populations who are medically underserved or people with lower incomes can help elucidate how best to tailor evidence-based interventions, but it is also important for evaluations to account for cultural and contextual factors. Culturally responsive evaluation (CRE) is a framework for centering an evaluation in the culture of the programs being evaluated. We integrated CRE with implementation and outcome constructs from the Adapted Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to ensure that the evaluation produced useful evidence for putting evidence-based diabetes interventions to use in real-world settings, reaching populations who are at an increased risk of developing diabetes. The paper provides an overview of how we integrated CRE and CFIR approaches to conduct mixed-methods evaluations of evidence-based diabetes interventions.

Abstract Background There has been increased attention to the need for, and the positive impact of, engaged or participatory science in recent years. Implementation scientists have an opportunity to leverage and contribute to engagement science (ES) through the systematic integration of engagement into implementation science (IS). The purpose of this study was to gather information from researchers and others to develop a prioritized list of research needs and opportunities at the intersection of IS and ES. Methods We conducted three Zoom-based focus groups with 20 researchers to generate a list of unmet needs, barriers, and to describe normative themes about use of ES and IS. Then a panel of nine experts in IS and/or engagement ranked the needs and barriers using a survey and met via a Zoom meeting to discuss and generate research opportunities and questions, with reference to the focus group outputs. Results Respondents and experts concurred on the importance of engagement in IS. Focus group participants reported 28 needs and barriers under the themes of 1) need for best practice guidance related to engagement processes and outcomes and 2) structural barriers to integrating ES in IS. The expert panel prioritized six structural barriers and four barriers related to generating best practice guidance, with corresponding recommendations on research opportunities. Example research opportunities related to engagement processes included: define “successful” engagement in IS contexts; adapt engagement tools and best practices from other disciplines into IS. Example research opportunities related to outcomes included: assess the impact of engagement on IS outcomes; examine engagement practices that lead to optimal engaged research. Example research opportunities related to structural barriers included: leverage research evidence to create structural changes needed to expand support for engaged IS; examine factors that influence institutional buy-in of engagement in IS. Conclusions Research needs exist that relate to engagement processes, outcomes, and structural barriers, even for scientists who value engaged research. Expert panelists recommended sequential and reinforcing research opportunities that implementation and engagement scientists can tackle together to advance both fields and health equity. Future work should assess insights from broader invested parties, particularly patients and community members.