Background A myriad of federal, state, and organizational policies are designed to improve access to evidence-based healthcare, but the impact of these policies likely varies due to contextual determinants of, reinterpretations of, and poor compliance with policy requirements throughout implementation. Strategies enhancing implementation and compliance with policy intent can improve population health. Critically assessing the multi-level environments where health policies and their related health services are implemented is essential to designing effective policy-level implementation strategies. California passed a 2019 health insurance benefit mandate requiring coverage of fertility preservation services for individuals at risk of infertility due to medical treatments, in order to improve access to services that are otherwise cost prohibitive. Our objective was to document and understand the multi-level environment, relationships, and activities involved in using state benefit mandates to facilitate patient access to fertility preservation services. Methods We conducted a mixed-methods study and used the policy-optimized exploration, preparation, implementation, and sustainment (EPIS) framework to analyze the implementation of California’s fertility preservation benefit mandate (SB 600) at and between the state insurance regulator, insurer, and clinic levels. Results Seventeen publicly available fertility preservation benefit mandate-relevant documents were reviewed. Interviews were conducted with four insurers; 25 financial, administrative, and provider participants from 16 oncology and fertility clinics; three fertility pharmaceutical representatives; and two patient advocates. The mandate and insurance regulator guidance represented two “Big P” (system level) policies that gave rise to a host of “little p” (organizational) policies by and between the regulator, insurers, clinics, and patients. Many little p policies were bridging factors to support implementation across levels and fertility preservation service access. Characterizing the mandate’s functions (i.e., policy goals) and forms (i.e., ways that policies were enacted) led to identification of (1) intended and unintended implementation, service, and patient outcomes, (2) implementation processes by level and EPIS phase, (3) actor-delineated key processes and heterogeneity among them, and (4) inner and outer context determinants that drove adaptations. Conclusions Following the midstream and downstream implementation of a state health insurance benefit mandate, data generated will enable development of policy-level implementation strategies, evaluation of determinants and important outcomes of effective implementation, and design of future mandates to improve fit and fidelity.

Background Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) screenings are increasingly being used in primary care clinics to identify toxic stress and potential trauma in children. ACEs are negative life events (e.g., violence exposure) occurring before age 18, that can increase health risks when unaddressed. However, we lack evidence on the impact of ACEs screenings and how they can be feasibly implemented in community-based clinics. We partnered with federally qualified health clinics to test the impact of a multifaceted implementation strategy on ACEs screening reach and mental health referrals for children ages 0–5. Methods We conducted a Hybrid Type 2 pilot trial using a stepped-wedge design (2021–2024). Reach data was measured as the proportion of eligible children screened for ACEs, with data collected from Electronic Health Records. We also assessed the percentage of mental health service referrals among all eligible children. Study clinics (n = 3) switched from no ACEs screenings (control) to implementing ACEs screenings supported by the multi-faceted ACE implementation strategy (intervention). The tested strategy comprised personnel training (e.g., trauma-informed care), integrated technology, team-based screening workflows, and ongoing care team implementation support. Additional clinics (n = 2) implemented ACEs screenings as usual without the strategy and served as additional comparison sites for exploratory analyses. Log-binomial and robust Poisson regression models examined differences in screening reach and referrals and were adjusted for site and patient race. Results Screening reach rates increased in the intervention period, from 0.0% of patients screened during control to 11.2% screened during intervention. Mental health service referrals increased from 0.4% at control to 7.2% during the intervention, resulting in a risk difference (95% confidence interval) of 6.9% (6.0%, 7.7%). For both the reach and referral outcomes, risk differences were significantly greater for 18-to-60-month-old patients than for patients under 18-months-old. Discussion Healthcare policy efforts promoting ACEs screenings in primary care are commendable. We found that a multi-faceted implementation strategy informed by partners and designed to support ACEs screenings in community-based clinics was feasible. However, its impact was attenuated by policy requirements, clinics’ capacity to add ACEs screenings to strained workflows, and multiple impactful outer-context events related and unrelated to the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial registration Trial # NCT04916587 registered at clinicaltrials.gov on June 4, 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04916587

Background Multisite implementation research in justice and health settings often does not systematically assess differential degrees of project involvement among participating sites, despite its impl...

BackgroundReducing adolescent suicide in the United States is a public health priority, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) youth are...

Background Employee behaviors that strategically support implementation (i.e., implementation citizenship behavior [ICB]) theoretically promote the adoption and high-fidelity use of evidence-based pra...

IntroductionDemonstrating the relevance and impact of translational research across diverse settings is crucial making the research-to-practice pipeline more...

Move by US biomedical agency threatens thousands of projects on infectious diseases, cancer and more.

The White House is withdrawing President Donald Trump's nomination of Republican former congressman and vaccine critic Dave Weldon to serve as director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a source briefed on the matter said on Thursday.