BackgroundAdaptations of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) often occur. However, little is known about the reasons for adaptation, the adaptation process, and outcomes of adapted EBIs. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review to answer the following questions: (1) What are the reasons for and common types of adaptations being made to EBIs in community settings as reported in the published literature? (2) What steps are described in making adaptations to EBIs? and (3) What outcomes are assessed in evaluations of adapted EBIs?MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of English language publications that described adaptations of public health EBIs. We searched Ovid PubMed, PsycINFO, PsycNET, and CINAHL and citations of included studies for adapted public health EBIs. We abstracted characteristics of the original and adapted populations and settings, reasons for adaptation, types of modifications, use of an adaptation framework, adaptation steps, and evaluation outcomes.ResultsForty-two distinct EBIs were found focusing on HIV/AIDS, mental health, substance abuse, and chronic illnesses. More than half (62%) reported on adaptations in the USA. Frequent reasons for adaptation included the need for cultural appropriateness (64.3%), focusing on a new target population (59.5%), and implementing in a new setting (57.1%). Common adaptations were content (100%), context (95.2%), cultural modifications (73.8%), and delivery (61.9%). Most study authors conducted a community assessment, prepared new materials, implemented the adapted intervention, evaluated or planned to evaluate the intervention, determined needed changes, trained staff members, and consulted experts/stakeholders. Most studies that reported an evaluation (k = 36) included behavioral outcomes (71.4%), acceptability (66.7%), fidelity (52.4%), and feasibility (52.4%). Fewer measured adoption (47.6%) and changes in practice (21.4%).ConclusionsThese findings advance our understanding of the patterns and effects of modifications of EBIs that are reported in published studies and suggest areas of further research to understand and guide the adaptation process. Furthermore, findings can inform better reporting of adapted EBIs and inform capacity building efforts to assist health professionals in adapting EBIs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0815-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction: We examined: (a) current (past 30-day) smokers' interest in using or switching to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) or smokeless tobacco for various reasons; (b) correlates of interest in these products; and (c) subgroups of current smokers in relation to interest in these products. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey assessing sociodemographics, tobacco use, interest in ENDS and smokeless tobacco among smokers, and knowledge about ENDS among 2,501 US adults recruited through an online consumer panel. We oversampled tobacco users (36.7% current cigarette smokers), ethnic minorities, and southeastern US state residents. Results: On average, participants were more interested in ENDS than smokeless tobacco across all reasons provided. Additionally, they were less interested in either product because of their potential use in places prohibiting smoking or due to curiosity and more interested in reducing health risk or cigarette consumption or to aid in cessation. We documented high rates (27.9%) of misbeliefs about Food and Drug Administration approval of ENDS for cessation, particularly among current smokers (38.5%). Also, 27.2% of current smokers had talked with a health care provider about ENDS, with 18.0% reporting that their provider endorsed ENDS use for cessation. Furthermore, cluster analyses revealed 3 groups distinct in their interest in the products, sociodemographics, and smoking-related characteristics. Conclusions: This study highlights higher interest in ENDS versus smokeless tobacco and greater interest in both for harm reduction and cessation than due to novelty or smoking restrictions. Developing educational campaigns and informing practitioners about caveats around ENDS as cessation or harm reduction aids are critical.

The emerging retail market for recreational marijuana use warrants research and surveillance as such markets are established in more US states. This research can be informed by the existing literature regarding tobacco and alcohol, which highlights the impact of spatial access to tobacco and alcohol retailers and exposure to tobacco and alcohol marketing on smoking and drinking among youth and young adults. Prior research indicates that tobacco and alcohol retailers, as well as medical marijuana dispensaries, are disproportionately located in neighborhoods characterized by socioeconomic disadvantage and by higher proportions of racial/ethnic minorities and young adults. Moreover, retail marketing or point-of-sale practices may differentially target subpopulations and differ by neighborhood demography and local policy. This literature and the methods employed for studying the tobacco and alcohol market could inform research on the retail environment for marijuana, as current gaps exist. In particular, much of the existing literature involves cross-sectional research designs; longitudinal studies are needed. Moreover, standardized measures are needed for systematic monitoring of industry marketing practices and to conduct research examining neighborhood differences in exposure to retail marketing for marijuana and its contribution to use modality and frequency, alone and in combination with nicotine and alcohol. The use of standardized measures for tobacco and alcohol marketing have been critical to develop an evidence base from cross-sectional and longitudinal studies that document the impact of retail marketing on substance use by adolescents and adults. Similar research is needed to establish an evidence base to inform federal, state, and local regulations of marijuana.

Exposure to secondhand smoke occurs primarily in the home due to passage of smoke-free legislation. Creation of a total household smoking ban can reduce associated health conditions such as asthma, lung cancer, heart disease and stroke. This paper describes the results of a randomized control trial of a minimal intervention to create smoke-free homes. 2-1-1 callers were invited to participate in the trial and were randomized to an intervention (mailings and a coaching call) or a control group (no intervention). We assessed reach, dose, fidelity, and receptivity to the intervention through program records and a 3-month follow-up survey with intervention participants. For the intervention materials, materials were mailed to 244 participants (99.2%) and 227 participants (92.3%) received the coaching call intervention. 92.3% received all intervention components. Participants who had full household bans at 3 months were more likely to conduct behaviors leading to a smoke-free home (i.e., making a list of reasons, having a family talk, posting a pledge) than were those with no/partial ban. The intervention materials also were rated higher in relevance and usefulness by non-smokers than smokers. Results demonstrate that this minimal intervention had high fidelity to the delivery of components and relatively high receptivity.

This study expands recent research refining audit instruments for rural areas. Findings suggest the usefulness of summarizing environmental data at the domain level and linking it to physical activity behavior to identify aspects of the neighborhood environment that are most strongly correlated with actual behavior.