Background: Preventative health measures such as shelter in place and mask wearing have been widely encouraged to curb the spread of the COVID-19 disease. People’s attitudes toward preventative behaviors may be dependent on their sources of information and trust in the information. Objective: The aim of this study was to understand the relationship between trusting in COVID-19 information and preventative behaviors in a racially and politically diverse metropolitan area in the United States. Methods: We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey of residents in St. Louis City and County in Missouri. Individuals aged ≥18 years were eligible to participate. Participants were recruited using a convenience sampling approach through social media and email. The Health Belief Model and the Socioecological Model informed instrument development, as well as COVID-19–related questions from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We performed an ordinary least squares linear regression model to estimate social distancing practices, perceptions, and trust in COVID-19 information sources. Results: Of the 1650 eligible participants, the majority (n=1381, 83.7%) had sought or received COVID-19–related information from a public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or both. Regression analysis showed a 1% increase in preventative behaviors for every 12% increase in trust in governmental health agencies. At their lowest levels of trust, women were 68% more likely to engage in preventative behaviors than men. Overall, those aged 18-45 years without vulnerable medical conditions were the least likely to engage in preventative behaviors. Conclusions: Trust in COVID-19 information increases an individual’s likelihood of practicing preventative behaviors. Effective health communication strategies should be used to effectively disseminate health information during disease outbreaks.

Background: As a relatively new field, dissemination and implementation research has not been included as a separate study design category for ethical consideration compared with clinical and social/behavioral research, yet it should be based on unique study designs, targets of intervention, and corresponding risks. Main text: Research teams conducting dissemination and implementation research have raised important questions related to the responsible conduct of research such as collecting informed consent, site monitoring, identifying and mitigating risks of unintended consequences, and adverse event ascertainment and reporting in dissemination and implementation research. In this commentary, we highlight the need for guidance and consensus standards on ethical issues in dissemination and implementation research and describe some ethical domains and relevant questions in dissemination and implementation research. Additionally, we propose a process for conceptual development and a research agenda to create consensus standards for the responsible conduct of research for dissemination and implementation research. Conclusion: Thorough research is needed to understand the depth of ethical issues in dissemination and implementation research. A consensus-seeking process will be needed to develop new bioethical standards that carefully identify, measure, and mitigate unintended consequences in dissemination and implementation research.

As global adoption of antiretroviral therapy extends the lifespan of People Living with HIV (PLHIV) through viral suppression, the risk of comorbid conditions such as hypertension has risen, creating a need for effective, scalable interventions to manage comorbidities in PLHIV. The Heart, Lung, and Blood Co-morbiditieS Implementation Models in People Living with HIV (HLB-SIMPLe) Alliance has been funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and the Fogarty International Center (FIC) since September 2020. The Alliance was created to conduct late-stage implementation research to contextualize, implement, and evaluate evidence-based strategies to integrate the diagnosis, treatment, and control of cardiovascular diseases, particularly hypertension, in PLHIV in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).The Alliance consists of six individually-funded clinical trial cooperative agreement research projects based in Botswana, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda, and Zambia; the Research Coordinating Center; and personnel from NIH, NHLBI, and FIC (the Federal Team). The Federal Team works together with the members of the seven cooperative agreements which comprise the alliance. The Federal Team includes program officials, project scientists, grant management officials and clinical trial specialists. This Alliance of research scientists, trainees, and administrators works collaboratively to provide and support venues for ongoing information sharing within and across the clinical trials, training and capacity building in research methods, publications, data harmonization, and community engagement. The goal is to leverage shared learning to achieve collective success, where the resulting science and training are greater with an Alliance structure rather than what would be expected from isolated and unconnected individual research projects.In this manuscript, we describe how the Research Coordinating Center performs the role of providing organizational efficiencies, scientific technical assistance, research capacity building, operational coordination, and leadership to support research and training activities in this multi-project cooperative research Alliance. We outline challenges and opportunities during the initial phases of coordinating research and training in the HLB-SIMPLe Alliance, including those most relevant to dissemination and implementation researchers.

Background/Objectives: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major global health threat, with children at higher risk due to developmental differences in drug metabolism, limited treatment options and inappropriate antibiotic use. Pediatric antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) face implementation challenges, often relying on adult-based guidelines and limited pediatric-specific evidence. This study aimed to identify and prioritize the most critical areas for pediatric ASP intervention development through a structured, multi-round Delphi consensus process with experts in antimicrobial stewardship and infectious diseases. Method: A four-round modified Delphi process was conducted to identify and prioritize key pediatric ASP interventions. Experts in antimicrobial stewardship and infectious diseases were recruited through an existing clinical trial. Using an iterative survey and in-person discussions, experts provided input on priority areas, which were thematically grouped and refined across rounds. Structured feedback supported real-time refinement and consensus-building. Results: Twenty experts participated in the process, generating 25 priority items in Round 1 through open-ended responses. These were narrowed to seven key priorities through structured voting and discussion. The final items were clustered into three intersecting themes: Care Settings, Prescriptions, and Strategies. Care Settings focused on high-impact areas such as outpatient clinics and intensive care units, where misuse is common and/or care is complex. The prescriptions theme prioritized shorter durations and narrow-spectrum agents. The strategy theme highlighted the need for outcome-based metrics, improved diagnostic stewardship, and routine tracking of patient outcomes to guide and assess stewardship efforts. Conclusions: This expert consensus identified key priorities for pediatric ASPs, providing a foundation for future interventions. Findings can be used to inform policy and practice, improving the appropriate use of antimicrobials in pediatrics and combating AMR.

As dissemination and implementation research advances, research teams seek guidance on how to apply existing ethical standards to implementation research,

Growing evidence suggests that public health organizations continue to provide inefficient interventions even when better intervention options may be available. Factors informing an organization’s decision to continue providing inefficient interventions are unclear. We present an analysis of HIV service organizations to understand factors influencing organizations to continue or end interventions. Between 2017 and 2019, HIV service organizations were recruited from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) website gettested.org, in the 20 metropolitan areas with the highest HIV incidence. Organizations were eligible to participate if they had provided at least one of 37 HIV prevention interventions identified as inefficient by the CDC. 877 organizations were recruited, with a response rate of 66%, (n = 578). Thirty-eight percent (n = 213) of organizations met the eligibility criteria, and 188 organizations completed the survey asking about reasons for continuing or ending interventions. Funding status (41%, n = 79) and client demand for interventions (60%, n = 116) were reported as the primary driving factors why organizations continued ineffective interventions. Scientific evidence was a rarely reported reason for ending an inefficient intervention (12%, n = 23). Qualitative responses indicated interventions were continued if clients demanded interventions they found useful or if staff perceived interventions as improving client behavior and health outcomes. Conversely, interventions were ended if client demand or retention was low, not relevant to the target population or funding ended. The decision to continue or end inefficient interventions is influenced by a number of factors—most often by funding and client interest but not scientific evidence.