Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States: A Health Equity Perspective

Approximately 13% of African American men are disqualified from voting because of a felony conviction. I used ecosocial theory to identify how institutionalized racism helps perpetuate health disparities and to explore pathways through which felon disenfranchisement laws may contribute to racial health disparities in the United States. From a literature review, I identified 2 potential pathways: (1) inability to alter inequitable public policies that differentially allocate resources for health; and (2) inability to reintegrate into society by voting, which contributes to allostatic load

A review of policy dissemination and implementation research funded by the National Institutes of Health, 2007–2014

BACKGROUND: Policy has a tremendous potential to improve population health when informed by research evidence. Such evidence, however, typically plays a suboptimal role in policymaking processes. The field of policy dissemination and implementation research (policy D&I) exists to address this challenge. The purpose of this study was to: (1) determine the extent to which policy D&I was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), (2) identify trends in NIH-funded policy D&I, and (3) describe characteristics of NIH-funded policy D&I projects. METHODS: The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was used to identify all projects funded through D&I-focused funding announcements. We screened for policy D&I projects by searching project title, abstract, and term fields for mentions of “policy,” “policies,” “law,” “legal,” “legislation,” “ordinance,” “statute,” “regulation,” “regulatory,” “code,” or “rule.” A project was classified as policy D&I if it explicitly proposed to conduct research about the content of a policy, the process through which it was developed, or outcomes it produced. A coding guide was iteratively developed, and all projects were independently coded by two researchers. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were used to obtain additional project information and validate coding decisions. Descriptive statistics—stratified by funding mechanism, Institute, and project characteristics—were produced. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2014, 146 projects were funded through the D&I funding announcements, 12 (8.2 %) of which were policy D&I. Policy D&I funding totaled $16,177,250, equivalent to 10.5 % of all funding through the D&I funding announcements. The proportion of funding for policy D&I projects ranged from 14.6 % in 2007 to 8.0 % in 2012. Policy D&I projects were primarily focused on policy outcomes (66.7 %), implementation (41.7 %), state-level policies (41.7 %), and policies within the USA (83.3 %). Tobacco (33.3 %) and cancer (25.0 %) control were the primary topics of focus. Many projects combined survey (58.3 %) and interview (33.3 %) methods with analysis of archival data sources. CONCLUSIONS: NIH has made an initial investment in policy D&I research, but the level of support has varied between Institutes. Policy D&I researchers have utilized a variety of designs, methods, and data sources to investigate the development processes, content, and outcomes of public and private policies. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0367-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT OF 2010: Advancing Health Equity for Racially and Ethnically Diverse Populations

Racial/ethnic disparities in health and health care in the United States are persistent and well documented. Communities of color fare far worse than their white counterparts across a range of health indicators: life expectancy, infant mortality, prevalence of chronic diseases, self-rated health status, insurance coverage, and many others.1 As the nation’s population continues to become increasingly diverse—people of color are projected to comprise 54% of the U.S. population by 2050 and more than half of U.S. children by 20232— these disparities are likely to grow if left unaddressed. Recent health care reform legislation, while not a panacea for eliminating health disparities, off ers an important fi rst step and an unprecedented opportunity to improve health equity in the United States. Reforming the nation’s health care system was President Obama’s top domestic priority when he was sworn into offi ce in January 2009. Th e road to reform was complex and unoffi cially started in summer of 2009 when House and Senate committees began to draft legislation. On November 7, 2009, the House of Representatives passed its health care reform proposal, Th e Aff ordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3962). On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed its own proposal for health care reform, Th e Patient Protection and Aff ordable Care Act (H.R. 3590)*, which was a merged version of the Senate Finance Committee’s America’s Health Future Act (S.1796) and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions’ Aff ordable Health Choices Act (S. 1697).† Eff orts to reconcile diff erences between the Senate and House bills were stymied by the death of Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), a lifelong proponent of health care reform and critical force in securing a proposal’s passage in the Senate. Faced with limited options and expecting that a compromise bill could not get Senate support, the House passed the Senate’s proposal and Th e Patient Protection and Aff ordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-148).‡ On March 30, 2010, the ACA was amended by Th e Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872). According to Congressional Budget Offi ce (CBO) estimates, the ACA, as reconciled by H.R. 4872, will reduce the defi cit by $143 billion over the next decade and decrease the number of non-elderly uninsured by 32 million, leaving 23 million uninsured— approximately one-third of whom would be undocumented immigrants.3 Th is report provides a comprehensive review of general and specifi c ACA provisions with the potential to signifi cantly improve health and health care for millions of diverse populations and their communities. Th e narrative that follows identifi es these provisions, discusses why they are important, and considers challenges that may lie ahead in implementing them. We have organized this presentation in three major sections. Th e next section discusses provisions that explicitly address health disparities, such as those concerning data collection by race/ethnicity, workforce diversity, cultural competence, health disparities research, health disparities initiatives in prevention, and health equity in health insurance reform, and discusses their implications for racially and ethnically diverse communities. Section III describes general provisions, including health insurance reforms, access to care, quality improvement, cost containment, public health and social determinants of health, all of which are likely to have major implications for diverse communities. An accompanying appendix identifi es these provisions, provides a timetable and, where identifi ed in the legislation, the federal agencies responsible for implementation, as well as allocations as of June 30, 2010. Section IV discusses issues that will be critical in realizing the full potential of health care reform and highlights questions and directions for the future, particularly in context of important priorities for reducing racial/ethnic health disparities that were left unaddressed

Design considerations for developing measures of policy implementation in quantitative evaluations of public health policy.

Typical quantitative evaluations of public policies treat policies as a binary condition, without further attention to how policies are implemented. However, policy implementation plays an important role in how the policy impacts behavioral and health outcomes. The field of policy-focused implementation science is beginning to consider how policy implementation may be conceptualized in quantitative analyses (e.g., as a mediator or moderator), but less work has considered how to measure policy implementation for inclusion in quantitative work. To help address this gap, we discuss four design considerations for researchers interested in developing or identifying measures of policy implementation using three independent NIH-funded research projects studying e-cigarette, food, and mental health policies. Mini case studies of these considerations were developed via group discussions; we used the implementation research logic model to structure our discussions. Design considerations include (1) clearly specifying the implementation logic of the policy under study, (2) developing an interdisciplinary team consisting of policy practitioners and researchers with expertise in quantitative methods, public policy and law, implementation science, and subject matter knowledge, (3) using mixed methods to identify, measure, and analyze relevant policy implementation determinants and processes, and (4) building flexibility into project timelines to manage delays and challenges due to the real-world nature of policy. By applying these considerations in their own work, researchers can better identify or develop measures of policy implementation that fit their needs. The experiences of the three projects highlighted in this paper reinforce the need for high-quality and transferrable measures of policy implementation, an area where collaboration between implementation scientists and policy experts could be particularly fruitful. These measurement practices provide a foundation for the field to build on as attention to incorporating measures of policy implementation into quantitative evaluations grows and will help ensure that researchers are developing a more complete understanding of how policies impact health outcomes

Local Health Departments’ Level of Engagement in Population Mental Health Promotion

Background: Mental health conditions are highly prevalent in the U.S. and are associated with physical health problems. Federal initiatives recognize mental health as a public health priority, and local health departments (LHDs) have been identified as partners to promote population mental health. Little is known, however, about the extent to which LHDs address mental health or how LHD officials perceive mental health as a public health concern. Purpose: To describe the cumulative level of LHDs’ engagement in activities to address population mental health and explore how LHD officials perceive their roles in promoting it. Methods: Module 2 of the 2013 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study (N=505) was used to develop a cumulative measure of LHD engagement in mental health activities. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed to describe LHDs’ level of mental health activity and identify associated LHD characteristics. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 30 LHD officials, audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic content analysis. Results: Over half (55.8%) of LHDs performed ≥1 mental health activities, and 21.2% performed ≥4. LHDs that provided primary care services were most engaged in mental health activities, with 30.4% performing ≥4 and 18.2% performing ≥6. LHD officials perceived mental health as a public health issue and felt community pressure to address it, but encountered barriers related to resources and organizational boundaries. Implications: LHDs might benefit from quality improvement and information sharing resources focused on population mental health promotion. Research should examine LHDs relationships with behavioral health departments and roles within broader social service systems

Multi-level alignment processes in the sustainment of a youth substance use treatment model following a federal implementation initiative: A mixed method study.

INTRODUCTION: Government agencies have identified evidence-based practice (EBP) dissemination as a pathway to high-quality behavioral health care for youth. However, gaps remain about how to best sustain EBPs in treatment organizations in the U.S., especially in resource-constrained settings like publicly-funded youth substance use services. One important, but understudied, determinant of EBP sustainment is alignment: the extent to which multi-level factors that influence sustainment processes and outcomes are congruent, consistent, and/or coordinated. This study examined the role of alignment in U.S. states efforts to sustain the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA), an EBP for youth substance use disorders, during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this mixed methods study, the qualitative investigation preceded and informed the quantitative investigation. We interviewed state administrators and providers (i.e., supervisors and clinicians) from 15 states that had completed a federal A-CRA implementation grant; providers also completed surveys. The sample included 50 providers from 35 treatment organizations that reported sustaining A-CRA when the COVID-19 pandemic began, and 20 state administrators. In qualitative thematic analyses, we applied the EPIS (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment) framework to characterize alignment processes that interviewees described as influential on sustainment. We then used survey items to quantitatively explore the associations described in qualitative themes, using bivariate linear regressions. RESULTS: At the time of interview, staff from 80 % of the treatment organizations (n = 28), reported sustaining A-CRA. Providers from both sustainer and non-sustainer organizations, as well as state administrators, described major sources of misalignment when state agencies ceased technical assistance post-grant, and because limited staff capacity conflicted with A-CRAs training model, which was perceived as time-intensive. Participants described the pandemic as exacerbating preexisting challenges, including capacity issues. Sustainer organizations reported seeking new funding to help sustain A-CRA. Quantitative associations between self-rated extent of sustainment and other survey items mostly followed the pattern predicted from the qualitative findings. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic amplified longstanding A-CRA sustainment challenges, but treatment organizations already successfully sustaining A-CRA pre-pandemic largely continued. There are missed opportunities for state-level actors to coordinate with providers on the shared goal of EBP sustainment. A greater focus on alignment processes in research and practice could help states and providers strengthen sustainability planning

The effect of caregiver key opinion leaders on increasing caregiver demand for evidence-based practices to treat youth anxiety: protocol for a randomized control trial

Background: Research has identified cognitive behavioral therapy with exposures (CBT) as an effective treatment for youth anxiety. Despite implementation efforts, few anxious youth receive CBT. Direct-to-consumer marketing offers a different approach to address the unmet need for youth receiving effective treatments. Involving a local caregiver key opinion leader in direct-to-consumer initiatives may be an effective strategy to increase caregiver demand for CBT. Research indicates that key opinion leaders improve health promotion campaigns, but key opinion leaders have not been studied in the context of increasing caregiver demand for evidence-based treatments. Method: Project CHAT (Caregivers Hearing about Anxiety Treatments) will test the role of key opinion leader participation in conducting outreach presentations to increase caregiver desire to seek CBT for their youth’s anxiety. Caregiver attendees (N = 180) will be cluster randomized by school to receive one of two different approaches for presentations on CBT for youth anxiety. Both approaches will involve community outreach presentations providing information on recognizing youth anxiety, strategies caregivers can use to decrease youth anxiety, and how to seek CBT for youth anxiety. The researcher-only condition will be co-facilitated by two researchers. In the key opinion leader condition, a caregiver key opinion leader from each local community will be involved in tailoring the content of the presentation to the context of the community, co-facilitating the presentation with a researcher, and endorsing strategies in the presentation that they have found to be helpful. In line with the theory of planned behavior, caregiver attendees will complete measures assessing their knowledge of, attitudes towards, perceived subjective norms about, and intention to seek CBT pre- and post-presentation; they will indicate whether they sought CBT for their youth at 3-month follow-up. Results will be analyzed using a mixed method approach to assess the effectiveness of a key opinion leader to increase caregiver demand for CBT. Discussion: This study will be the first to examine the potential of key opinion leaders to increase caregiver demand for CBT. If proven effective, the use of key opinion leaders could serve as a scalable dissemination strategy to increase the reach of evidence-based treatments.Temple University. College of Liberal ArtsPsychology and Neuroscienc

Quantitative measures used in empirical evaluations of mental health policy implementation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Mental health is a critical component of wellness. Public policies present an opportunity for large-scale mental health impact, but policy implementation is complex and can vary significantly across contexts, making it crucial to evaluate implementation. The objective of this study was to (1) identify quantitative measurement tools used to evaluate the implementation of public mental health policies; (2) describe implementation determinants and outcomes assessed in the measures; and (3) assess the pragmatic and psychometric quality of identified measures. METHOD: Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, Policy Implementation Determinants Framework, and Implementation Outcomes Framework, we conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal articles published in 1995-2020. Data extracted included study characteristics, measure development and testing, implementation determinants and outcomes, and measure quality using the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale. RESULTS: We identified 34 tools from 25 articles, which were designed for mental health policies or used to evaluate constructs that impact implementation. Many measures lacked information regarding measurement development and testing. The most assessed implementation determinants were readiness for implementation, which encompassed training ( CONCLUSIONS: This work contributes to the nascent field of policy-focused implementation science by providing an overview of existing measurement tools used to evaluate mental health policy implementation and recommendations for measure development and refinement. To advance this field, more valid, reliable, and pragmatic measures are needed to evaluate policy implementation and close the policy-to-practice gap. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Mental health is a critical component of wellness, and public policies present an opportunity to improve mental health on a large scale. Policy implementation is complex because it involves action by multiple entities at several levels of society. Policy implementation is also challenging because it can be impacted by many factors, such as political will, stakeholder relationships, and resources available for implementation. Because of these factors, implementation can vary between locations, such as states or countries. It is crucial to evaluate policy implementation, thus we conducted a systematic review to identify and evaluate the quality of measurement tools used in mental health policy implementation studies. Our search and screening procedures resulted in 34 measurement tools. We rated their quality to determine if these tools were practical to use and would yield consistent (i.e., reliable) and accurate (i.e., valid) data. These tools most frequently assessed whether implementing organizations complied with policy mandates and whether organizations had the training and other resources required to implement a policy. Though many were relatively brief and available at little-to-no cost, these findings highlight that more reliable, valid, and practical measurement tools are needed to assess and inform mental health policy implementation. Findings from this review can guide future efforts to select or develop policy implementation measures

Measures of outer setting constructs for implementation research: a systematic review and analysis of psychometric quality

Background: Despite their influence, outer setting barriers (e.g., policies, financing) are an infrequent focus of implementation research. The objective of this systematic review was to identify and assess the psychometric properties of measures of outer setting used in behavioral and mental health research. Methods: Data collection involved (a) search string generation, (b) title and abstract screening, (c) full-text review, (d) construct mapping, and (e) measure forward searches. Outer setting constructs were defined using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The search strategy included four relevant constructs separately: (a) cosmopolitanism, (b) external policy and incentives, (c) patient needs and resources, and (d) peer pressure. Information was coded using nine psychometric criteria: (a) internal consistency, (b) convergent validity, (c) discriminant validity, (d) known-groups validity, (e) predictive validity, (f) concurrent validity, (g) structural validity, (h) responsiveness, and (i) norms. Frequencies were calculated to summarize the availability of psychometric information. Information quality was rated using a 5-point scale and a final median score was calculated for each measure. Results: Systematic searches yielded 20 measures: four measures of the general outer setting domain, seven of cosmopolitanism, four of external policy and incentives, four of patient needs and resources, and one measure of peer pressure. Most were subscales within full scales assessing implementation context. Typically, scales or subscales did not have any psychometric information available. Where information was available, the quality was most often rated as â 1-minimalâ or â 2-adequate.â Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to focus exclusively on measures of outer setting factors used in behavioral and mental health research and comprehensively assess a range of psychometric criteria. The results highlight the limited quantity and quality of measures at this level. Researchers should not assume â one size fits allâ when measuring outer setting constructs. Some outer setting constructs may be more appropriately and efficiently assessed using objective indices or administrative data reflective of the system rather than the individual