Background: Screening in primary care for unmet individual social needs (e.g., housing instability, food insecurity, unemployment, social isolation) is critical to addressing their deleterious effects on patients’ health outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the first study to apply an implementation science framework to identify implementation factors and best practices for social needs screening and response.Methods: Guided by the Health Equity Implementation Framework (HEIF), we collected qualitative data from clinicians and patients to evaluate barriers and facilitators to implementing the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients’ Assets, Risks, and Experiences (PRAPARE), a standardized social needs screening and response protocol, in a federally qualified health center. Eligible patients who received the PRAPARE as a standard of care were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. We also obtained front-line clinician perspectives in a semi-structured focus group. HEIF domains informed a directed content analysis.Results: Patients and clinicians (i.e., case managers) reported implementation barriers and facilitators across multiple domains (e.g., clinical encounters, patient and provider factors, inner context, outer context, and societal influence). Implementation barriers included structural and policy level determinants related to resource availability, discrimination, and administrative burden. Facilitators included evidence-based clinical techniques for shared decision making (e.g., motivational interviewing), team-based staffing models, and beliefs related to alignment of the PRAPARE with patient-centered care. We found high levels of patient acceptability and opportunities for adaptation to increase equitable adoption and reach.Conclusion: Our results provide practical insight into the implementation of the PRAPARE or similar social needs screening and response protocols in primary care at the individual encounter, organizational, community, and societal levels. Future research should focus on developing discrete implementation strategies to promote social needs screening and response, and associated multisector care coordination to improve health outcomes and equity for vulnerable and marginalized patient populations.

Objective: Restricting insulin to lose weight is a significant problem in the clinical management of type 1 diabetes (T1D). Little is known about this behavior or how to effectively intervene. Identifying when insulin restriction occurs could allow clinicians to target typical high-risk times or formulate hypotheses regarding factors that influence this behavior. The current study investigated the frequency of insulin restriction by time of day. Methods: Fifty-nine adults with T1D and eating disorder symptoms completed 72 hours of real-time reporting of eating and insulin dosing with continuous glucose monitoring. We used a generalized estimating equation model to test the global hypothesis that frequency of insulin restriction (defined as not taking enough insulin to cover food consumed) varied by time of day, and examined frequency of insulin restriction by hour. We also examined whether patterns of insulin restriction for 72 hours corresponded with patients' interview reports of insulin restriction for the past 28 days. Results: Frequency of insulin restriction varied as a function of time (p = .016). Insulin restriction was the least likely in the morning hours (6:00–8:59 AM), averaging 6% of the meals/snacks consumed. Insulin restriction was more common in the late afternoon (3:00–5:59 PM), peaking at 29%. Insulin was restricted for 32% of the meals/snacks eaten overnight (excluding for hypoglycemia); however, overnight eating was rare. Insulin restriction was associated with higher 120-minute postprandial blood glucose (difference = 44.4 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval = 22.7–68.5, p < .001) and overall poorer metabolic control (r = 0.43–0.62, p's < .01). Patients reported restricting insulin for a greater percentage of meals and snacks for the past 28 days than during the 72 hour real-time assessment; however, the reports were correlated (Spearman's ρ = 0.46, p < .001) and accounted for similar variance in HbA_1c (34% versus 35%, respectively). Conclusions: Findings suggest that insulin restriction may be less likely in the morning, and that late afternoon is a potentially important time for additional therapeutic support. Results also suggest that systematic clinical assessment and treatment of overnight eating might improve T1D management.

Background: Eating disorders (EDs) among individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) increase the risk of early and severe diabetes-related medical complications and premature death. Conventional eating disorder (ED) treatments have been largely ineffective for T1D patients, indicating the need to tailor treatments to this patient population and the unique conditions under which ED symptoms emerge (in the context of a chronic illness with unrelenting demands to control blood glucose, diet and exercise). The current study was a pilot open trial ofiACT, a novel intervention for EDs in T1D grounded in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT).iACT was based on the premise that ED symptoms emerge as individuals attempt to cope with T1D and related emotional distress.iACT taught acceptance and mindfulness as an alternative to maladaptive avoidance and control, and leveraged personal values to increase willingness to engage in T1D management, even when it was upsetting (e.g., after overeating). A tailored mobile application (“app”) was used in between sessions to facilitate the application of ACT skills in the moment that individuals are making decisions about their diabetes management.Methods: Adults with T1D who met criteria for an ED completed 12 sessions ofiACT (with three optional tapering sessions). In addition to examining whether treatment was acceptable and feasible (the primary aim of the study), the study also examined whetheriACT was associated with increased psychological flexibility (i.e., the ability to have distressing thoughts/feelings about diabetes while pursuing personally meaningful values), and improvements in ED symptoms, diabetes management and diabetes distress.Results: Treatment was acceptable to T1D patients with EDs and feasible to implement. Participants reported increased psychological flexibility with diabetes-related thoughts/feelings, and less obstruction and greater progress in pursuing personal values. There were large effects for change in ED symptoms, diabetes self-management and diabetes distress from baseline to end-of-treatment (Cohen’sd = .90–1.79). Hemoglobin A_1calso improved, but thep-value did not reach statistical significance,p = .08.Conclusions: Findings provide preliminary evidence foriACT to improve outcomes for T1D patients with EDs and support further evaluation of this approach in a controlled trial.Trial registration: NCT02980627. Registered 8 July 2016.

Background: Newly graduated nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) benefit from transition-to-practice (TTP) support to move successfully into practice. Transition-to-practice programs (i.e., onboarding programs and fellowships/residencies) hold promise for improving workforce outcomes. Purpose: The purpose of this scoping review was to describe the literature regarding NP/PA TTP programs. Methodology: Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, a specific approach for systematically conducting reviews, publications from January 1990 to May 2022 were included for review if they addressed fellowships/residencies or onboarding programs for NPs or PAs. Final data extraction involved 216 articles. Results: The pace of publication increased over time, with a noticeable increase since 2015. Articles were most commonly about fellowships/residencies, NPs, and programs set in United States nonrural, acute care settings, and academic health centers. Conclusions/Implications: There is a gap in our understanding of onboarding programs and programs focusing on PAs, as well as TTP support in rural and primary care settings. In addition, there are few articles that assess TTP program outcomes such as benefits and costs. This review describes the need for more published literature in these areas.

ObjectiveIdentify the prevalence of food insecurity (FI) and compare sociodemographic, mental, physical, behavioral, and environmental risk factors for FI among students at a private university, community college, and historically black college or university (HBCU).ParticipantsAdult students attending a private university, community college, or HBCU (n = 4,140) located within the southeastern United States.MethodsUsing an online survey (2017-2019), FI, sociodemographic, mental, physical, behavioral, and environmental data were collected to understand their association with FI.ResultsUp to 37.1% of students experienced FI. Identifying as black, other/multi-racial, having poor sleep, federal loans, depressive symptoms, high stress, social isolation, or a chronic condition were associated with FI. These associations varied by institution.ConclusionsFI is prevalent within diverse post-secondary institutions that serve traditional and nontraditional students with risk factors varying between institutions. The prevalence of FI and risk factors can inform institutional policy responses to ameliorate the effects of FI.

Evidence-based approaches promoting patient engagement and chronic illness self-management include peer support, shared decision-making, and education. Designed based on these components, Taking Charge of My Life and Health (TCMLH) is a group-based, ‘Whole Person’ care program promoting mental and physical self-care and patient empowerment. Despite evidence of effectiveness, little is known about implementation for TCMLH and similar programs. In this first-of-its-kind, multi-methods evaluation conducted between 2015–2020, we report on implementation strategies and intervention adaptations with a contextual analysis to describe TCMLH translational efforts in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities across the United States. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected via listening sessions with TCMLH facilitators, open-ended survey responses from facilitators, and quarterly reports from clinical implementation sites. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to analyze, interpret, and organize qualitative findings, and descriptive statistics to analyze quantitative data. Most TCMLH programs (58%) were adapted from the original format, including changes to the modality, duration, or frequency of sessions. Findings suggest these adaptations occurred in response to barriers including space, staffing constraints, and participant recruitment. Overall, findings highlight practical insights for improving the implementation of TCMLH, including recommendations for additional adaptations and tailored implementation strategies to promote its reach.