No abstract

The All of Us Research Program (All of Us) is a national effort to accelerate health research by exploring the relationship between lifestyle, environment, and genetics. It is set to become one of the largest research efforts in U.S. history, aiming to build a national resource of data from at least one million participants. All of Us aims to address the need for more diversity in research and set the stage for that diversity to be leveraged in precision medicine research to come. This paper describes how the program assessed demographic characteristics of participants who have enrolled in other U.S. biomedical research cohorts to better understand which groups are traditionally represented or underrepresented in biomedical research. We 1) reviewed the enrollment characteristics of national cohort studies like All of Us, and 2) surveyed the literature, focusing on key diversity categories essential to the program's enrollment aims. Based on these efforts, All of Us emphasizes enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities, and has formally designated the following additional groups as historically underrepresented: individuals-with inadequate access to medical care; under the age of 18 or over 65; with an annual household income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level; who have a cognitive or physical disability; have less than a high school education or equivalent; are intersex; identify as a sexual or gender minority; or live in rural or non-metropolitan areas. Research accounting for wider demographic variability is critical. Only by ensuring diversity and by addressing the very barriers that limit it, can we position All of Us to better understand and tackle health disparities.

Based on a collaborative symposium in 2014 hosted by the Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) and the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), this paper presents a model for physical activity counseling for primary care physicians (PCPs). Most US adults do not meet national recommendations for physical activity levels. Socioecological factors drive differences in physical activity levels by geography, sex, age, and racial/ethnic group. The recent Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act incentivizes PCPs to offer patients physical activity counseling. However, PCPs have reported socioecological barriers to physical activity counseling and also patient barriers to physical activity, spanning from the individual to the environmental (eg, lack of safe spaces for physical activity), policy (eg, reimbursement policies), and organizational (eg, electronic medical record protocols, worksite norms/policies) levels. The aims of this paper are to: 1) discuss barriers to PCP counseling for physical activity; 2) provide evidence-based strategies and techniques to help PCPs address these counseling barriers; and 3) suggest practical steps for PCPs to counsel patients on physical activity using strategies and supports from policy, the primary care team, and other support networks.

Introduction: Online Diabetes Prevention Programs (DPPs) can be scaled-up and delivered broadly. However, little is known about real-world effectiveness and how outcomes compare with in-person DPP. This study examined online DPP weight loss and participation outcomes and secondarily compared outcomes among participating individuals with parallel in-person interventions. Study design: A large non-randomized trial supplemented by a comparative analysis of participating individuals from a concurrent trial of two parallel in-person programs: in-person DPP and the Veterans Administration’s standard of care weight loss program (MOVE!). Setting/participants: Obese/overweight Veterans with prediabetes enrolled in online DPP (n=268) between 2013 and 2014. Similar eligibility criteria were used to enroll in-person participants between 2012 and 2014 (n=273 in-person DPP, n=114 MOVE!) within a separate trial. Intervention: Online DPP included a virtual group format, live e-coach, weekly modules delivered asynchronously and wireless home scales. In-person programs included eight to 22 group-based, face-to-face sessions. Main outcomes measures: Weight change at 6 and 12 months, using wirelessly uploaded home scale data or electronic medical record weights from clinical in-person visits. Outcomes were analyzed between 2015 and 2017. Results: From 1,182 invitations, 268 (23%) participants enrolled in online DPP. Among these, 158 (56%) completed eight or more modules; mean weight change was –4.7 kg at 6 months and –4.0 kg at 12 months. In a supplemental analysis of participants completing one or more sessions/modules, online DPP participants were most likely to complete eight or more sessions/modules (87% online DPP vs 59% in-person DPP vs 55% MOVE!, p<0.001). Online and in-person DPP participants lost significantly more weight than MOVE! participants at 6 and 12 months; there was no significant difference in weight change between online and in-person DPP. Conclusions: An intensive, multifaceted online DPP intervention had higher participation but similar weight loss compared to in-person DPP. An intensive, multifaceted online DPP intervention may be as effective as in-person DPP and help expand reach to those at risk.

BackgroundThe Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) is an effective lifestyle intervention to reduce incidence of type 2 diabetes. However, there are gaps in knowledge about how to implement DPP. The aim of this study was to evaluate implementation of DPP via assessment of a clinical demonstration in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).MethodsA 12-month pragmatic clinical trial compared weight outcomes between the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Prevention Program (VA-DPP) and the usual care MOVE!® weight management program (MOVE!). Eligible participants had a body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 (or BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 with one obesity-related condition), prediabetes (glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 5.7–6.5% or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) 100–125 mg/dL), lived within 60 min of their VA site, and had not participated in a weight management program within the last year. Established evaluation and implementation frameworks were used to guide the implementation evaluation. Implementation barriers and facilitators, delivery fidelity, participant satisfaction, and implementation costs were assessed. Using micro-costing methods, costs for assessment of eligibility and scheduling and maintaining adherence per participant, as well as cost of delivery per session, were also assessed.ResultsSeveral barriers and facilitators to Reach, Adoption, Implementation, Effectiveness and Maintenance were identified; barriers related to Reach were the largest challenge encountered by site teams. Fidelity was higher for VA-DPP delivery compared to MOVE! for five of seven domains assessed. Participant satisfaction was high in both programs, but higher in VA-DPP for most items. Based on micro-costing methods, cost of assessment for eligibility was $68/individual assessed, cost of scheduling and maintaining adherence was $328/participant, and cost of delivery was $101/session.ConclusionsMulti-faceted strategies are needed to reach targeted participants and successfully implement DPP. Costs for assessing patients for eligibility need to be carefully considered while still maximizing reach to the targeted population.

Lack of trust in biomedical research, government, and health care systems, especially among racial/ethnic minorities and under-resourced communities, is a longstanding issue rooted in social injustice. The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted existing health and socioeconomic inequities and increased the urgency for solutions to provide access to timely, culturally, and linguistically appropriate evidence-based information about COVID-19; and ultimately to promote vaccine uptake. California’s statewide alliance STOP COVID-19 CA (comprising eleven sites), leverages long standing community partnerships to better understand concerns, misinformation, and address racial/ethnic inequities in vaccine hesitancy and uptake. Using data from the California CEAL Communication Working Group, we demonstrate the wide range of strategies, communication methods, languages, and trusted messengers that have been effective in reaching diverse communities across the state. We also showcase challenges and lessons learned, such as the importance of including trusted community partners to share information or provide vaccines. These approaches, rooted in community engagement, are crucial for addressing inequities and responding to future public health emergencies.

This version may be subject to change during the production process.

AbstractDissemination and implementation (D&I) science is dedicated to studying how to effectively translate and apply research in real-world contexts. There has been increasing interest in health equity within the D&I field to ensure the equitable implementation of evidence-based programs/practices across a range of diverse populations and settings. At the same time, health equity researchers recognize the potential of D&I science to promote the more widespread dissemination, implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based interventions to address health inequities. The National Center for Accelerating Clinical and Translational Science Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program has been a champion for community engagement and translational scholarship in its mission to improve individual and population health. The overall CTSA infrastructure and resources within and among CTSA hubs are well-equipped to facilitate a health equity focus to D&I across the phases of translational research. This paper proposes a framework that demonstrates the interaction and opportunities between health equity and D&I science and highlights how CTSAs can support and facilitate wider efforts in translational research with a focus on equitable D&I.