Background Numerous models, frameworks, and theories exist for specific aspects of implementation research, including for determinants, strategies, and outcomes. However, implementation research projects often fail to provide a coherent rationale or justification for how these aspects are selected and tested in relation to one another. Despite this need to better specify the conceptual linkages between the core elements involved in projects, few tools or methods have been developed to aid in this task. The Implementation Research Logic Model (IRLM) was created for this purpose and to enhance the rigor and transparency of describing the often-complex processes of improving the adoption of evidence-based interventions in healthcare delivery systems. Methods The IRLM structure and guiding principles were developed through a series of preliminary activities with multiple investigators representing diverse implementation research projects in terms of contexts, research designs, and implementation strategies being evaluated. The utility of the IRLM was evaluated in the course of a 2-day training to over 130 implementation researchers and healthcare delivery system partners. Results Preliminary work with the IRLM produced a core structure and multiple variations for common implementation research designs and situations, as well as guiding principles and suggestions for use. Results of the survey indicated a high utility of the IRLM for multiple purposes, such as improving rigor and reproducibility of projects; serving as a “roadmap” for how the project is to be carried out; clearly reporting and specifying how the project is to be conducted; and understanding the connections between determinants, strategies, mechanisms, and outcomes for their project. Conclusions The IRLM is a semi-structured, principle-guided tool designed to improve the specification, rigor, reproducibility, and testable causal pathways involved in implementation research projects. The IRLM can also aid implementation researchers and implementation partners in the planning and execution of practice change initiatives. Adaptation and refinement of the IRLM are ongoing, as is the development of resources for use and applications to diverse projects, to address the challenges of this complex scientific field.

Background: Numerous models, frameworks, and theories exist for specific aspects of implementation research, including for determinants, strategies, and outcomes.However, implementation research projects often fail to provide a coherent rationale or justification for how these aspects are selected and tested in relation to one another.Despite this need to better specify the conceptual linkages between the core elements involved in projects, few tools or methods have been developed to aid in this task. The Implementation Research Logic Model (IRLM) was created for this purpose and to enhance the rigor and transparency of describing the often-complex processes of improving the adoption of evidence-based practices in healthcare delivery systems. Methods:The IRLM structure and guiding principles were developed through a series of preliminary activities with multiple investigators representing diverse implementation research projects in terms of contexts, research designs, and implementation strategies being evaluated. The utility of the IRLM was evaluated in the course of a two-day training to over 130 implementation researchers and healthcare delivery system partners.Results: Preliminary work with the IRLM produced a core structure and multiple variations for common implementation research designs and situations, as well as guiding principles and suggestions for use. Results of the survey indicated high utility of the IRLM for multiple purposes, such as improving rigor and reproducibility of projects; serving as a "roadmap" for how the project is to be carried out; clearly reporting and specifying how the project is to be conducted; and understanding the connections between determinants, strategies, mechanisms, and outcomes for their project. Implementation Research Logic Model (IRLM) Smith, Li, & Rafferty, 2020 Conclusions: The IRLM is a semi-structured, principles-guided tool designed to improve the specification, rigor, reproducibility, and testable causal pathways involved in implementation research projects. The IRLM can also aid implementation researchers and implementation partners in the planning and execution of practice change initiatives. Adaptation and refinement of the IRLM is ongoing, as is the development of resources for use and applications to diverse projects, to address the challenges of this complex scientific field. Having an imprecise understanding of what was done and why during implementation of a new innovation obfuscates identifying the factors responsible for successful implementation and prevents learning from what contributed to failed implementation. Thus, improving the specification of phenomena in implementation research is necessary to inform our understanding of how implementation strategies work, for whom, under what determinant conditions, and on what implementation and clinical outcomes. One challenge is that implementation science has numerous models and frameworks (hereafter, "frameworks") to describe, organize, and aid in understanding the complexity of changing practice patte...

Use of MSM-specific apps was not uncommon among this sample of AMSM. Patterns of risk behavior and HIV testing were similar to samples of adult MSM app users. Further research should investigate AMSM's app-related sexual and HIV/sexually transmitted infection prevention decision-making to guide sexual health education efforts for AMSM.

Sexual minorities are at increased risk for substance use and mental health problems. Although previous studies have examined the associations between outness and health outcomes, few have used longitudinal designs or examined differences across subgroups of sexual minorities. To address these gaps, the current study examined sexual orientation and gender as moderators of the longitudinal associations between outness and substance use (cigarettes, marijuana, illicit drugs, and alcohol) and mental health (depression and anxiety). Data were from a sample of 169 sexual minority emerging adults (98 women and 71 men) who provided self-report data at four times over 3.5 years. Results indicated that sexual orientation moderated the within-person associations between outness and changes in health. For bisexual individuals, being more out was associated with increases in marijuana use, illicit drug use, and depression. In contrast, for gay/lesbian individuals, being more out was associated with decreases in illicit drug use and it was not significantly associated with changes in marijuana use or depression. Additionally, outness was not significantly associated with changes in cigarette use, alcohol use, or anxiety for gay/lesbian or bisexual individuals, and gender did not moderate any of the associations. In sum, being more open about one's sexual orientation had negative consequences for bisexual individuals but not for gay/lesbian individuals. Professionals who work with sexual minorities need to be aware of the potential risks of being open about one's sexual orientation for bisexual individuals. Interventions are needed to facilitate disclosure decisions and to promote the health of sexual minorities.

In 2019, the requisite biomedical and behavioral interventions to eliminate new HIV infections exist. "Ending the HIV Epidemic" now becomes primarily a challenge of will and implementation. This review maps the extent to which implementation research (IR) has been integrated into HIV research by reviewing the recent funding portfolio of the NIH. We searched NIH RePORTER for HIV and IR-related research projects funded from January 2013 to March 2018. The 4629 unique studies identified were screened using machine learning and manual methods. 216 abstracts met the eligibility criteria of HIV and IR. Key study characteristics were then abstracted. NIH currently funds HIV studies that are either formally IR (n = 109) or preparatory for IR (n = 107). Few (13%) projects mentioned a guiding implementation model, theory, or framework, and only 56% of all studies explicitly mentioned measuring an implementation outcome. Considering the study aims along an IR continuum, 18 (8%) studies examined barriers and facilitators, 43 (20%) developed implementation strategies, 46 (21%) piloted strategies, 73 (34%) tested a single strategy, and 35 (16%) compared strategies. A higher proportion of formal IR projects involved established interventions (e.g., integrated services) compared to newer interventions (e.g., pre-exposure prophylaxis). Prioritizing HIV-related IR in NIH and other federal funding opportunity announcements and expanded training in implementation science could have a substantial impact on ending the HIV pandemic. This review serves as a baseline by which to compare funding patterns and the sophistication of IR in HIV research over time.

Background Adolescent men who have sex with men (AMSM), aged 13 to 18 years, account for more than 80% of teen HIV occurrences. Despite this disproportionate burden, there is a conspicuous lack of evidence-based HIV prevention programs. Implementation issues are critical as traditional HIV prevention delivery channels (eg, community-based organizations, schools) have significant access limitations for AMSM. As such, eHealth interventions, such as our proposed SMART program, represent an excellent modality for delivering AMSM-specific intervention material where youth are. Objective This randomized trial aimed to test the effectiveness of the SMART program in reducing condom-less anal sex and increasing condom self-efficacy, condom use intentions, and HIV testing for AMSM. We also plan to test whether SMART has differential effectiveness across important subgroups of AMSM based on race and ethnicity, urban versus rural residence, age, socioeconomic status, and participation in an English versus a Spanish version of SMART. Methods Using a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial design, we will evaluate the impact of a stepped-care package of increasingly intensive eHealth interventions (ie, the universal, information-based SMART Sex Ed; the more intensive, selective SMART Squad; and a higher cost, indicated SMART Sessions). All intervention content is available in English and Spanish. Participants are recruited primarily from social media sources using paid and unpaid advertisements. Results The trial has enrolled 1285 AMSM aged 13 to 18 years, with a target enrollment of 1878. Recruitment concluded in June 2020. Participants were recruited from 49 US states as well as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. Assessments of intervention outcomes at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months are ongoing. Conclusions SMART is the first web-based program for AMSM to take a stepped-care approach to sexual education and HIV prevention. This design indicates that SMART delivers resources to all adolescents, but more costly treatments (eg, video chat counseling in SMART Sessions) are conserved for individuals who need them the most. SMART has the potential to reach AMSM to provide them with a sex-positive curriculum that empowers them with the information, motivation, and skills to make better health choices. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03511131; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03511131 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/19701

No abstract

People who identify as non-monosexual and transgender experience disparities in engagement with healthcare services relative to monosexual and cisgender persons, respectively. However, little is known about the healthcare utilization of those with intersecting sexual and gender minority identities. We explored the knowledge, attitudes, and health motivation of non-monosexually identified transgender participants regarding preventive care and access to sexual healthcare services. We surveyed 87 ciswomen, 34 transwomen, and 27 transmen, all of whom identified as bisexual, pansexual, or queer (bi+). We assessed their access to health care, health outcome experiences, confidence with talking about anogenital topics, proactivity toward their health, comfort with healthcare providers, and knowledge about HPV and examined differences across groups. The data indicated that bi+ transmen and transwomen were more likely to be uninsured or on a government-sponsored insurance plan relative to bi+ ciswomen. Only a minority of transmen and transwomen had seen an obstetrician/gynecologist compared with ciswomen. Transmen were less likely to have received a pelvic examination or cervical Pap smear in their lifetime. Transgender participants had significantly less correct knowledge about HPV relative to ciswomen. Finally, relative to ciswomen, transgender participants reported lower comfort talking with health providers. Our findings suggest that bi+ transmen and transwomen access care less than bi+ ciswomen and have less health knowledge and comfort with their providers. Implications for intervention include encouraging transgender individuals to seek routine screenings, reducing structural barriers to care based on medical coverage, and improving patient-provider competencies around bi+ and transgender health needs.