BackgroundHarm reduction refers to interventions aimed at reducing the negative effects of health behaviors without necessarily extinguishing the problematic health behaviors completely. The vast majority of the harm reduction literature focuses on the harms of drug use and on specific harm reduction strategies, such as syringe exchange, rather than on the harm reduction philosophy as a whole. Given that a harm reduction approach can address other risk behaviors that often occur alongside drug use and that harm reduction principles have been applied to harms such as sex work, eating disorders, and tobacco use, a natural evolution of the harm reduction philosophy is to extend it to other health risk behaviors and to a broader healthcare audience.MethodsBuilding on the extant literature, we used data from in-depth qualitative interviews with 23 patients and 17 staff members from an HIV clinic in the USA to describe harm reduction principles for use in healthcare settings.ResultsWe defined six principles of harm reduction and generalized them for use in healthcare settings with patients beyond those who use illicit substances. The principles include humanism, pragmatism, individualism, autonomy, incrementalism, and accountability without termination. For each of these principles, we present a definition, a description of how healthcare providers can deliver interventions informed by the principle, and examples of how each principle may be applied in the healthcare setting.ConclusionThis paper is one of the firsts to provide a comprehensive set of principles for universal harm reduction as a conceptual approach for healthcare provision. Applying harm reduction principles in healthcare settings may improve clinical care outcomes given that the quality of the provider-patient relationship is known to impact health outcomes and treatment adherence. Harm reduction can be a universal precaution applied to all individuals regardless of their disclosure of negative health behaviors, given that health behaviors are not binary or linear but operate along a continuum based on a variety of individual and social determinants.

BACKGROUND Quality improvement in primary care has focused on improving adult immunization. OBJECTIVES Test the effectiveness of a step-by step, evidence-based guide, the 4 Pillars™ Immunization Toolkit, to increase adult pneumococcal vaccination. DESIGN Randomized controlled cluster trial (RCCT) in Year 1 (6/1/2013–5/31/2014) and a pre-post study in Year 2 (6/1/2014–1/31/2015) with data analyzed in 2016. Baseline year was 6/1/2012–5/31/2013. Demographic and vaccination data were derived from de-identified EMR extractions. SETTING 25 primary care practices stratified by city (Houston, Pittsburgh), location (rural, urban, suburban) and type (family medicine, internal medicine), randomized to receive the intervention in Year 1 (n=13) or Year 2 (n=12). PARTICIPANTS A cohort of 18,107 patients ≥65 years at baseline with a mean age of 74.2 years; 60.7% were women, 16.5% were non-white and 15.7% were Hispanic. INTERVENTION The Toolkit, provider education, and one-on-one coaching of practice-based immunization champions. Outcome measures were 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV) and pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) rates and percentage point (PP) changes. RESULTS In the RCCT, all intervention and control groups had significantly higher PPSV vaccination rates with average increases ranging from 6.5–8.7 PP (P<0.01). The intervention was not related to higher likelihood of PPSV vaccination. In the Year 2 pre-post study, the likelihood of PPSV and PCV vaccination was significantly higher in the active intervention sites than the maintenance sites in Pittsburgh, but not in Houston. CONCLUSION In a randomized controlled cluster trial, both intervention and control groups increased PPSV among adults ≥65 years. In a pre-post study, private primary care practices using the 4 Pillars™ Immunization Toolkit significantly improved PPSV and PCV uptake compared with practices that were in the maintenance phase of the study.

BackgroundThere is a critical gap between needs and available resources for mental health treatment across the world, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In countries committed to increasing resources to address these needs it is important to conduct research, not only to assess the depth of mental health needs and the current provision of public and private mental health services, but also to examine implementation methods and evaluate mental health approaches to determine which methods are most effective in local contexts. However, research resources in many LMICs are inadequate, largely because conventional research training is time-consuming and expensive. Adapting a hackathon model may be a feasible method of increasing capacity for mental health services research in resource-poor countries.MethodsTo explore the feasibility of this approach, we developed a ‘grantathon’, i.e. a research training workshop, to build capacity among new investigators on implementation research of Indian government-funded mental health programmes, which was based on a need expressed by government agencies. The workshop was conducted in Delhi, India, and brought together junior faculty members working in mental health services settings throughout the country, experienced international behavioural health researchers and representatives of the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR), the prime Indian medical research funding agency. Pre- and post-assessments were used to capture changes in participants’ perceived abilities to develop proposals, design research studies, evaluate outcomes and develop collaborations with ICMR and other researchers. Process measures were used to track the number of single-or multi-site proposals that were generated and funded.ResultsParticipants (n = 24) generated 12 single- or multi-site research grant applications that will be funded by ICMR.ConclusionThe grantathon model described herein can be modified to build mental health services research capacity in other contexts. Given that this workshop not only was conceptualised and delivered but also returned results in less than 1 year, this model has the potential to quickly build research capacity and ultimately reduce the mental health treatment gap in resource-limited settings.

No abstract

Although the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapies has increased survival rates for many individuals living with HIV/AIDS, chronically homeless individuals with the disease continue to experience poor clinical outcomes and high mortality rates in comparison to the general population living with HIV. Housing as a structural intervention for homeless people living with HIV/AIDS has been shown both to be feasible and to improve access to care. However, few studies report the impact of accessing stable housing on residents' viral load counts, even though viral load has been accepted as the best predictor of clinical prognosis for over a decade. The Open Door is a nonprofit agency that utilizes a harm reduction, housing first model of care to improve clinical outcomes for homeless people living with HIV. This article describes the first study that utilizes viral load to assess the effectiveness of a housing first approach. During the study period, we found that 69% of residents of The Open Door achieved undetectable viral loads, which far exceeds adherence rates ranging from 13 to 32% that were found in other studies of similar vulnerable populations. This finding supports the feasibility of this approach and its potential impact on reducing HIV morbidity, mortality, and secondary transmission. Given that the majority of the residents were active substance users during the study period and achieved undetectable viral loads, our findings also substantiate other studies demonstrating that substance users are able to maintain clinical adherence.