Equitable Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccines: An Analysis of the Initial Allocation Plans of CDC\u27s Jurisdictions with Implications for Disparate Impact Monitoring

Major global and national vaccine allocation guidelines urge planners to allocate vaccines in ways that recognize, and ideally reduce, existing societal inequities within countries. However, allocation plans of the US will be determined individually by each of the CDC’s 64 jurisdictions (states, the District of Columbia, five cities, and territories). We analyzed whether jurisdictions have incorporated novel approaches to reduce inequity, based on plans published by the CDC in early November 2020 (63 summaries [98% of all jurisdictions] and 47 full guidance documents [73% of all, including all 50 states]). Eighteen states adopted a novel proposal to use a disadvantage index to allocate vaccines more equitably, for five types of equity goals: 1) to prioritize disadvantaged groups directly, 2) to define priority groups in phased systems, 3) to plan tailored outreach and communication, 4) to plan the location of dispensing sites and 5) to monitor uptake. Yet just over a third of all states, and only half of the 16 states with the largest shares of disadvantaged populations—where reducing inequity would be most urgent—pursue such goals. While allocation frameworks are still evolving, the plans we analyzed mark important historical and practical benchmarks, and could become firm policy when COVID-19 vaccines are authorized and delivered. Vaccine roll-out poses unprecedented logistical and practical challenges. To minimize the risk that ethics and social justice falls by the wayside in the busy months to come, planners at the federal, state and local levels should carefully consider on what grounds they decline to adopt equity measures that other planners deem important and feasible for defining priority populations, designing allocation quotas, and just as critical, enabling, and monitoring, uptake

Minimally invasive mitral valve replacement: Port-access technique, feasibility, and myocardial functional preservation

AbstractObjective: This experiment examined the feasibility of minimally invasive port-access mitral valve replacement via a 2.5 cm incision. Methods: The study evaluated valvular performance and myocardial functional recovery in six mongrel dogs after port-access mitral valve replacement with a St. Jude Medical prosthesis (St. Jude Medical, Inc., St. Paul, Minn.). Femoro-femoral cardiopulmonary bypass and a balloon catheter system for myocardial protection with cardioplegic arrest (Heartport, Inc., Redwood City, Calif.) were used. The mitral valve was replaced through a 2.5 cm port in the left side of the chest, and the animals were weaned from bypass. Cardiac function was measured before and at 30 and 60 minutes after bypass. Left ventricular pressure and electrical conductance volume were used to calculate changes in load-independent indexes of ventricular function. Results: Each procedure was successfully completed. Recovery of left ventricular function was excellent at 30 and 60 minutes after bypass compared with the prebypass values for elastance (30 minutes = 4.04 ± 0.97 and 60 minutes = 4.27 ± 0.57 vs prebypass = 4.45 ± 0.96; p = 0.51) and for preload recruitable stroke work (30 minutes = 76.23 ± 4.80 and 60 minutes = 71.21 ± 2.99 vs prebypass = 71.23 ± 3.75; p = 0.45). Preload recruitable work area remained at 96% and 85% of baseline at 30 and 60 minutes (p = not significant). In addition, transesophageal echocardiography demonstrated normal prosthetic valve function, as well as normal regional and global ventricular wall motion. Autopsy revealed secure annular-sewing apposition and normal leaflet motion. Conclusions: These results suggest that minimally invasive mitral valve replacement using percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass with cardioplegic arrest is technically reproducible, achieves normal valve placement, and results in complete cardiac functional recovery. Minimally invasive mitral valve replacement is now feasible, and clinical trials are indicated. (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997; 113:1022-31

Study protocol for a type III hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial of strategies to implement firearm safety promotion as a universal suicide prevention strategy in pediatric primary care

BACKGROUND: Insights from behavioral economics, or how individuals\u27 decisions and behaviors are shaped by finite cognitive resources (e.g., time, attention) and mental heuristics, have been underutilized in efforts to increase the use of evidence-based practices in implementation science. Using the example of firearm safety promotion in pediatric primary care, which addresses an evidence-to-practice gap in universal suicide prevention, we aim to determine: is a less costly and more scalable behavioral economic-informed implementation strategy (i.e., Nudge ) powerful enough to change clinician behavior or is a more intensive and expensive facilitation strategy needed to overcome implementation barriers? METHODS: The Adolescent and child Suicide Prevention in Routine clinical Encounters (ASPIRE) hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation trial uses a longitudinal cluster randomized design. We will test the comparative effectiveness of two implementation strategies to support clinicians\u27 use of an evidence-based firearm safety practice, S.A.F.E. Firearm, in 32 pediatric practices across two health systems. All pediatric practices in the two health systems will receive S.A.F.E. Firearm materials, including training and cable locks. Half of the practices (k = 16) will be randomized to receive Nudge; the other half (k = 16) will be randomized to receive Nudge plus 1 year of facilitation to target additional practice and clinician implementation barriers (Nudge+). The primary implementation outcome is parent-reported clinician fidelity to the S.A.F.E Firearm program. Secondary implementation outcomes include reach and cost. To understand how the implementation strategies work, the primary mechanism to be tested is practice adaptive reserve, a self-report practice-level measure that includes relationship infrastructure, facilitative leadership, sense-making, teamwork, work environment, and culture of learning. DISCUSSION: The ASPIRE trial will integrate implementation science and behavioral economic approaches to advance our understanding of methods for implementing evidence-based firearm safety promotion practices in pediatric primary care. The study answers a question at the heart of many practice change efforts: which strategies are sufficient to support change, and why? Results of the trial will offer valuable insights into how best to implement evidence-based practices that address sensitive health matters in pediatric primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04844021 . Registered 14 April 2021

Does Selective Migration Explain the Hispanic Paradox?: A Comparative Analysis of Mexicans in the U.S. and Mexico

Latino immigrants, particularly Mexican, have some health advantages over U.S.-born Mexicans and Whites. Because of their lower socioeconomic status, this phenomenon has been called the epidemiologic “Hispanic Paradox.” While cultural theories have dominated explanations for the Paradox, the role of selective migration has been inadequately addressed. This study is among the few to combine Mexican and U.S. data to examine health selectivity in activity limitation, self-rated health, and chronic conditions among Mexican immigrants, ages 18 and over. Drawing on theories of selective migration, this study tested the “healthy migrant” and “salmon-bias” hypotheses by comparing the health of Mexican immigrants in the U.S. to non-migrants in Mexico, and to return migrants in Mexico. Results suggest that there are both healthy migrant and salmon-bias effects in activity limitation, but not other health aspects. In fact, consistent with prior research, immigrants are negatively selected on self-rated health. Future research should consider the complexities of migrants’ health profiles and examine selection mechanisms alongside other factors such as acculturation

Implementing nudges for suicide prevention in real-world environments: project INSPIRE study protocol

Background: Suicide is a global health issue. There are a number of evidence-based practices for suicide screening, assessment, and intervention that are not routinely deployed in usual care settings. The goal of this study is to develop and test implementation strategies to facilitate evidence-based suicide screening, assessment, and intervention in two settings where individuals at risk for suicide are especially likely to present: primary care and specialty mental health care. We will leverage methods from behavioral economics, which involves understanding the many factors that influence human decision making, to inform strategy development. Methods: We will identify key mechanisms that limit implementation of evidence-based suicide screening, assessment, and intervention practices in primary care and specialty mental health through contextual inquiry involving behavioral health and primary care clinicians. Second, we will use contextual inquiry results to systematically design a menu of behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies that cut across settings, in collaboration with an advisory board composed of key stakeholders (i.e., behavioral economists, clinicians, implementation scientists, and suicide prevention experts). Finally, we will conduct rapid-cycle trials to test and refine the menu of implementation strategies. Primary outcomes include clinician-reported feasibility and acceptability of the implementation strategies. Discussion: Findings will elucidate ways to address common and unique barriers to evidence-based suicide screening, assessment, and intervention practices in primary care and specialty mental health care. Results will yield refined, pragmatically tested strategies that can inform larger confirmatory trials to combat the growing public health crisis of suicide

Behavioral economic implementation strategies to improve serious illness communication between clinicians and high-risk patients with cancer: protocol for a cluster randomized pragmatic trial

Background Serious illness conversations (SICs) are an evidence-based approach to eliciting patients’ values, goals, and care preferences that improve patient outcomes. However, most patients with cancer die without a documented SIC. Clinician-directed implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics (“nudges”) that identify high-risk patients have shown promise in increasing SIC documentation among clinicians. It is unknown whether patient-directed nudges that normalize and prime patients towards SIC completion—either alone or in combination with clinician nudges that additionally compare performance relative to peers—may improve on this approach. Our objective is to test the effect of clinician- and patient-directed nudges as implementation strategies for increasing SIC completion among patients with cancer. Methods We will conduct a 2 × 2 factorial, cluster randomized pragmatic trial to test the effect of nudges to clinicians, patients, or both, compared to usual care, on SIC completion. Participants will include 166 medical and gynecologic oncology clinicians practicing at ten sites within a large academic health system and their approximately 5500 patients at high risk of predicted 6-month mortality based on a validated machine-learning prognostic algorithm. Data will be obtained via the electronic medical record, clinician survey, and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and patients. The primary outcome will be time to SIC documentation among high-risk patients. Secondary outcomes will include time to SIC documentation among all patients (assessing spillover effects), palliative care referral among high-risk patients, and aggressive end-of-life care utilization (composite of chemotherapy within 14 days before death, hospitalization within 30 days before death, or admission to hospice within 3 days before death) among high-risk decedents. We will assess moderators of the effect of implementation strategies and conduct semi-structured interviews with a subset of clinicians and patients to assess contextual factors that shape the effectiveness of nudges with an eye towards health equity. Discussion This will be the first pragmatic trial to evaluate clinician- and patient-directed nudges to promote SIC completion for patients with cancer. We expect the study to yield insights into the effectiveness of clinician and patient nudges as implementation strategies to improve SIC rates, and to uncover multilevel contextual factors that drive response to these strategies. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04867850 . Registered on April 30, 2021. Funding National Cancer Institute P50CA24469

Rationale and protocol for a cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to improve tobacco treatment rates for cancer patients who smoke

Background Routine evidence-based tobacco use treatment minimizes cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, reduces treatment-related toxicity, and improves quality of life among patients receiving cancer care. Few cancer centers employ mechanisms to systematically refer patients to evidence-based tobacco cessation services. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics can increase tobacco use treatment engagement within oncology care. Methods A four-arm cluster-randomized pragmatic trial will be conducted across nine clinical sites within the Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control Implementation Lab to compare the effect of behavioral economic implementation strategies delivered through embedded messages (or “nudges”) promoting patient engagement with the Tobacco Use Treatment Service (TUTS). Nudges are electronic medical record (EMR)-based messages delivered to patients, clinicians, or both, designed to counteract known patient and clinician biases that reduce treatment engagement. We used rapid cycle approaches (RCA) informed by relevant stakeholder experiences to refine and optimize our implementation strategies and methods prior to trial initiation. Data will be obtained via the EMR, clinician survey, and semi-structured interviews with a subset of clinicians and patients. The primary measure of implementation is penetration, defined as the TUTS referral rate. Secondary outcome measures of implementation include patient treatment engagement (defined as the number of patients who receive FDA-approved medication or behavioral counseling), quit attempts, and abstinence rates. The semi-structured interviews, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, will assess contextual factors and patient and clinician experiences with the nudges. Discussion This study will be the first in the oncology setting to compare the effectiveness of nudges to clinicians and patients, both head-to-head and in combination, as implementation strategies to improve TUTS referral and engagement. We expect the study to (1) yield insights into the effectiveness of nudges as an implementation strategy to improve uptake of evidence-based tobacco use treatment within cancer care, and (2) advance our understanding of the multilevel contextual factors that drive response to these strategies. These results will lay the foundation for how patients with cancer who smoke are best engaged in tobacco use treatment and may lead to future research focused on scaling this approach across diverse centers. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04737031 . Registered 3 February 2021