Social isolation and loneliness are serious yet underappreciated public health risks that affect a significant portion of the older adult population. Approximately one-quarter of community-dwelling Americans aged 65 and older are considered to be socially isolated, and a significant proportion of adults in the United States report feeling lonely. People who are 50 years of age or older are more likely to experience many of the risk factors that can cause or exacerbate social isolation or loneliness, such as living alone, the loss of family or friends, chronic illness, and sensory impairments. Over a life course, social isolation and loneliness may be episodic or chronic, depending upon an individual's circumstances and perceptions. A substantial body of evidence demonstrates that social isolation presents a major risk for premature mortality, comparable to other risk factors such as high blood pressure, smoking, or obesity. As older adults are particularly high-volume and high-frequency users of the health care system, there is an opportunity for health care professionals to identify, prevent, and mitigate the adverse health impacts of social isolation and loneliness in older adults. Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults summarizes the evidence base and explores how social isolation and loneliness affect health and quality of life in adults aged 50 and older, particularly among low income, underserved, and vulnerable populations. This report makes recommendations specifically for clinical settings of health care to identify those who suffer the resultant negative health impacts of social isolation and loneliness and target interventions to improve their social conditions. Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults considers clinical tools and methodologies, better education and training for the health care workforce, and dissemination and implementation that will be important for translating research into practice, especially as the evidence base for effective interventions continues to flourish.

Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults: Opportunities for the Health Care System

RE-AIM is a widely adopted, robust implementation science (IS) framework used to inform intervention and implementation design, planning, and evaluation, as well as to address short-term maintenance. In recent years, there has been growing focus on the longer-term sustainability of evidence-based programs, policies and practices (EBIs). In particular, investigators have conceptualized sustainability as the continued health impact and delivery of EBIs over a longer period of time (e.g., years after initial implementation) and incorporated the complex and evolving nature of context. We propose a reconsideration of RE-AIM to integrate recent conceptualizations of sustainability with a focus on addressing dynamic context and promoting health equity. In this Perspective, we present an extension of the RE-AIM framework to guide planning, measurement/evaluation, and adaptations focused on enhancing sustainability. We recommend consideration of: (1) extension of "maintenance" within RE-AIM to include recent conceptualizations of dynamic, longer-term intervention sustainability and "evolvability" across the life cycle of EBIs, including adaptation and potential de-implementation in light of changing and evolving evidence, contexts, and population needs; (2) iterative application of RE-AIM assessments to guide adaptations and enhance long-term sustainability; (3) explicit consideration of equity and cost as fundamental, driving forces that need to be addressed across RE-AIM dimensions to enhance sustainability; and (4) use or integration of RE-AIM with other existing frameworks that address key contextual factors and examine multi-level determinants of sustainability. Finally, we provide testable hypotheses and detailed research questions to inform future research in these areas.

/pdf/an-extension-of-re-aim-to-enhance-sustainability-addressing-2vhof4ed7h.pdf

An Extension of RE-AIM to Enhance Sustainability: Addressing Dynamic Context and Promoting Health Equity Over Time.

Recent reviews of the use and application of implementation frameworks in implementation efforts highlight the limited use of frameworks, despite the value in doing so. As such, this article aims to provide recommendations to enhance the application of implementation frameworks, for implementation researchers, intermediaries, and practitioners. Ideally, an implementation framework, or multiple frameworks should be used prior to and throughout an implementation effort. This includes both in implementation science research studies and in real-world implementation projects. To guide this application, outlined are ten recommendations for using implementation frameworks across the implementation process. The recommendations have been written in the rough chronological order of an implementation effort; however, we understand these may vary depending on the project or context: (1) select a suitable framework(s), (2) establish and maintain community stakeholder engagement and partnerships, (3) define issue and develop research or evaluation questions and hypotheses, (4) develop an implementation mechanistic process model or logic model, (5) select research and evaluation methods (6) determine implementation factors/determinants, (7) select and tailor, or develop, implementation strategy(s), (8) specify implementation outcomes and evaluate implementation, (9) use a framework(s) at micro level to conduct and tailor implementation, and (10) write the proposal and report. Ideally, a framework(s) would be applied to each of the recommendations. For this article, we begin by discussing each recommendation within the context of frameworks broadly, followed by specific examples using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. The use of conceptual and theoretical frameworks provides a foundation from which generalizable implementation knowledge can be advanced. On the contrary, superficial use of frameworks hinders being able to use, learn from, and work sequentially to progress the field. Following the provided ten recommendations, we hope to assist researchers, intermediaries, and practitioners to improve the use of implementation science frameworks.

/pdf/ten-recommendations-for-using-implementation-frameworks-in-41ynk0neqj.pdf

Ten recommendations for using implementation frameworks in research and practice

Collecting Qualitative Data

Numerous models, tools and frameworks have been produced to improve the sustainability of evidence-based interventions. Due to the vast number available, choosing the most appropriate one is increasingly difficult for researchers and practitioners. To understand the value of such approaches, evidence warranting their use is needed. However, there is limited understanding of how sustainability approaches have been used and how they have impacted research or practice. This review aims to consolidate evidence on the application and impact of sustainability approaches in healthcare settings. A systematic scoping review was designed to search for peer-reviewed publications detailing the use of sustainability approaches in practice. A 5-stage framework for scoping reviews directed the search strategy, and quality assessment was performed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Searches were performed through electronic citation tracking and snowballing of references. Articles were obtained through Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar. Six outcome variables for sustainability were explored to ascertain impact of approaches. This review includes 68 articles demonstrating the application of sustainability approaches in practice. Results show an increase in the use of sustainability approaches in peer-reviewed studies. Approaches have been applied across a range of healthcare settings, including primary, secondary, tertiary and community healthcare. Approaches are used for five main purposes, namely analysis, evaluation, guidance, assessment and planning. Results outline benefits (e.g. improved conceptualisation of sustainability constructs and improved ability to interpret sustainability data) and challenges (e.g. issues with approach constructs and difficulty in application) associated with using a sustainability approach in practice. Few articles (14/68) reported the sustainability outcome variables explored; therefore, the impact of approaches on sustainability remains unclear. Additional sustainability outcome variables reported in retrieved articles are discussed. This review provides practitioners and researchers with a consolidated evidence base on sustainability approaches. Findings highlight the remaining gaps in the literature and emphasise the need for improved rigour and reporting of sustainability approaches in research studies. To guide future assessment and study of sustainability in healthcare settings an updated list of sustainability outcome variables is proposed. This review was registered on the PROSPERO database CRD 42016040081
 in June 2016.

/pdf/making-change-last-exploring-the-value-of-sustainability-192s7jh7c7.pdf

Making change last? Exploring the value of sustainability approaches in healthcare: a scoping review

Inadequate sustainability of implementation of evidence-based interventions has led to calls for research on how sustainability can be optimized. To advance our understanding of intervention sustainability, we explored how implementation researchers conceptualized and planned for the sustainability of their implemented interventions with studies funded by the United States (US) National Institutes of Health (NIH). We used sequential, mixed methods to explore how researchers conceptualized and planned for the sustainability of the health interventions using (1) a document review of all active and completed US NIH R01 Grants and Equivalents reviewed within the Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (DIRH) Study Section between 2004 and 2016 and (2) a qualitative content analysis of semi-structured interviews with NIH R01 DIRH grant recipients. We found 277 R01 profiles within the DIRH study section listed on the US NIH RePORTER website including 84 that were eligible for screening. Of the 84 unique projects, 76 (90.5%) had primary implementation outcomes. Of the 76 implementation project profiles, 51 (67.1%) made references to sustainability and none referred to sustainability planning. In both profiles and interviews, researchers conceptualized sustainability primarily as the continued delivery of interventions, programs, or implementation strategies. Few researchers referenced frameworks with sustainability constructs and offered limited information on how they operationalized frameworks. Researchers described broad categories of approaches and strategies to promote sustainability and key factors that may influence researchers to plan for sustainability, such as personal beliefs, self-efficacy, perception of their role, and the challenges of the grant funding system. We explored how US NIH R01 DIRH grant recipients conceptualized and planned for the sustainability of their interventions. Our results identified the need to test, consolidate, and provide guidance on how to operationalize sustainability frameworks, and to develop strategies on how funders and researchers can advance sustainability research.

/pdf/how-do-researchers-conceptualize-and-plan-for-the-1j033pg96z.pdf

How do researchers conceptualize and plan for the sustainability of their NIH R01 implementation projects

Abstract Background: Cannabis can induce negative outcomes among consumers with mental health conditions. This study examined medical help-seeking behavior, patterns of adverse effects, and perceived impacts of cannabis among consumers with and without mental health conditions. Methods: Data came from the International Cannabis Policy Study, via online surveys conducted in 2018. Respondents included 6,413 past 12-month cannabis consumers aged 16–65, recruited from commercial panels in Canada and the US. Regression models examined differences in adverse health effects and perceived impact of cannabis among those with and without self-reported past 12-month experience of anxiety, depression, PTSD, bipolar disorder, psychosis. Results: Overall, 7% of past 12-month consumers reported seeking medical help for adverse effects of cannabis, including panic, dizziness, nausea. Help-seeking was greater for those with psychosis (13.8%: AOR = 1.78; 1.11–2.87), depression (8.9%: AOR = 1.57; 1.28–1.93), and bipolar disorder (10.1%: AOR = 1.53; 1.44–2.74). Additionally, 54.1% reported using cannabis to manage symptoms of mental health, with higher rates among those with bipolar (90.8%) and PTSD (90.7%). Consumers reporting >1 condition were more likely to perceive positive impacts on friendships, physical/mental health, family life, work, studies, quality of life (all p < .001). Consumers with psychosis were most likely to perceive negative effects across categories. Conclusion: For conditions with substantial evidence suggesting cannabis is harmful, greater help-seeking behaviors and self-perceived negative effects were observed. Consumers with mental health conditions generally perceive cannabis to have a positive impact on their lives. The relationship between cannabis and mental health is disorder specific and may include a combination of perceived benefits and harms.

/pdf/cannabis-and-mental-health-adverse-outcomes-and-self-gmej795r.pdf

Cannabis and Mental Health: Adverse Outcomes and Self-Reported Impact of Cannabis Use by Mental Health Status

Canadians seeking medical cannabis (MC) may encounter difficulties in finding a healthcare provider (HCP) who authorizes their access to it. Barriers that HCPs face in authorizing MC are unclear. The objectives of this study were to evaluate HCP opinions, knowledge, comfort, and practice in MC prescribing and counseling on recreational cannabis use, and whether the COVID-19 pandemic affected MC prescribing practices.Eligible participants included HCPs (e.g., attending physicians, nurses, pharmacists) in Canada. A questionnaire evaluating their knowledge, comfort, and practice in medical and recreational cannabis was designed based on instruments developed in previous studies. Between April 13th-December 13th 2021, ninety-one healthcare associations were asked to distribute the survey to their members, and an advertisement was placed in the online Canadian Medical Association Journal. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results.Twenty-four organizations agreed to disseminate the survey and 70 individuals completed it. Of respondents, 71% were attending physicians or medical residents, while the remainder were nurses, pharmacists or other HCPs. Almost none (6%) received training in MC in professional school but 60% did receive other training (e.g., workshops, conferences). Over half (57%) received more questions regarding MC since recreational cannabis was legalized, and 82% reported having patients who use MC. However, 56% felt uncomfortable or ambivalent regarding their knowledge of MC, and 27% were unfamiliar with the requirements for obtaining MC in Canada. The most common symptoms for recommending MC were pain and nausea, whereas the most common conditions for recommending it were cancer and intractable pain. The strongest barrier to authorizing MC was uncertainty in safe and effective dosage and routes of administration. The strongest barrier to recommending or authorizing MC was the lack of research evidence demonstrating its safety and efficacy. During the pandemic, many respondents reported that a greater number of their patients used cannabis to relieve anxiety and depression.Our results suggest that HCPs across Canada who responded to our survey are unfamiliar with topics related to MC. The strongest barriers appear to be lack of clinical research, and uncertainty in safe and effective MC administration. Increasing research, training, and knowledge may help HCPs feel more equipped to make informed treatment/prescribing decisions, which may help to improve access to MC. 

/pdf/healthcare-practitioner-perceptions-on-barriers-impacting-2erimsag.pdf

Jennifer Rup

Papers

How do researchers conceptualize and plan for the sustainability of their NIH R01 implementation projects

Cannabis and Mental Health: Adverse Outcomes and Self-Reported Impact of Cannabis Use by Mental Health Status

Healthcare practitioner perceptions on barriers impacting cannabis prescribing practices