Blending an implementation science framework with principles of proportionate universalism to support physical activity promotion in primary healthcare while addressing health inequities

Aligning the planning, development, and implementation of complex interventions to local contexts with an equity focus: application of the PRISM/RE-AIM Framework

For the fields of implementation science and health equity, understanding and being responsive to local contexts is of utmost importance to better inform the development, implementation, and evaluation of healthcare and public health interventions to increase their uptake and sustainment. Contexts are multi-level and include political, historical, economic, and social factors that influence health, as well as organizational characteristics, reflecting the richness of members' views, resources, values, and needs. Poor alignment between solutions and those contextual characteristics could have an impact on inequities. The PRISM (Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model) is a context-based implementation science framework that incorporates RE-AIM outcomes (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) and offers guidance to researchers, practitioners, and their patient and community partners on how to conceptualize, assess, and address contextual domains with a focus on health equity. Drawing from systems thinking, participatory engagement, and health equity principles, this commentary expands on previous work to 1) offer a novel perspective on how to align an intervention's core functions and forms with the PRISM's contextual domains, and 2) foster an ongoing and iterative engagement process with diverse partners throughout the research and practice process using a co-creation approach. We recommend intervention-to-context alignment through iterative cycles. To that end, we present the RE-AIM Framework's 'outcomes cascade' to illustrate touch points of opportunity and gaps within and across each of the five RE-AIM outcomes to illustrate 'where things go wrong'. We present a case study to illustrate and offer recommendations for research and practice efforts to increase contextual responsiveness, and enhance alignment with context before, during, and after implementation efforts and to ensure equity is being addressed. We strive to make a conceptual contribution to advance the field of pragmatic research and implementation of evidence-based practices through the application of the contextually-based PRISM framework with a focus on health equity.

Leveraging artificial intelligence to advance implementation science: potential opportunities and cautions

BACKGROUND

The field of implementation science was developed to address the significant time delay between establishing an evidence-based practice and its widespread use. Although implementation science has contributed much toward bridging this gap, the evidence-to-practice chasm remains a challenge. There are some key aspects of implementation science in which advances are needed, including speed and assessing causality and mechanisms. The increasing availability of artificial intelligence applications offers opportunities to help address specific issues faced by the field of implementation science and expand its methods.

MAIN TEXT

This paper discusses the many ways artificial intelligence can address key challenges in applying implementation science methods while also considering potential pitfalls to the use of artificial intelligence. We answer the questions of "why" the field of implementation science should consider artificial intelligence, for "what" (the purpose and methods), and the "what" (consequences and challenges). We describe specific ways artificial intelligence can address implementation science challenges related to (1) speed, (2) sustainability, (3) equity, (4) generalizability, (5) assessing context and context-outcome relationships, and (6) assessing causality and mechanisms. Examples are provided from global health systems, public health, and precision health that illustrate both potential advantages and hazards of integrating artificial intelligence applications into implementation science methods. We conclude by providing recommendations and resources for implementation researchers and practitioners to leverage artificial intelligence in their work responsibly.

CONCLUSIONS

Artificial intelligence holds promise to advance implementation science methods ("why") and accelerate its goals of closing the evidence-to-practice gap ("purpose"). However, evaluation of artificial intelligence's potential unintended consequences must be considered and proactively monitored. Given the technical nature of artificial intelligence applications as well as their potential impact on the field, transdisciplinary collaboration is needed and may suggest the need for a subset of implementation scientists cross-trained in both fields to ensure artificial intelligence is used optimally and ethically.

Applying an equity lens to assess context and implementation in public health and health services research and practice using the PRISM framework

Dissemination and implementation science seeks to enhance the uptake, successful implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based programs and policies. While a focus on health equity is implicit in many efforts to increase access to and coverage of evidence-based programs and policies, most implementation frameworks and models do not explicitly address it. Disparities may in fact be increased by emphasizing high intensity interventions or ease of delivery over meeting need within the population, addressing deep-rooted structural inequities, and adapting to local context and priorities. PRISM (Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model), the contextual expansion of the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework has several elements that address health equity, but these have not been explicated, integrated, or illustrated in one place. We present guidance for applying PRISM with an equity lens across its four context domains (external environment; multi-level perspectives on the intervention; characteristics of implementers and intended audience; and the implementation and sustainability infrastructure-as well as the five RE-AIM outcome dimensions. We then present an example with health equity considerations and discuss issues of representation and participation, representativeness and the importance of ongoing, iterative assessment of dynamic context and structural drivers of inequity. We also elaborate on the importance of a continuous process that requires addressing community priorities and responding to capacity and infrastructure needs and changes. We conclude with research and practice recommendations for applying PRISM with an increased emphasis on equity.

Sixteen-year trends in multiple lifestyle risk behaviours by socioeconomic status from 2004 to 2019 in New South Wales, Australia

Few studies have examined trends in inequalities related to lifestyle risk behaviours. This study examined 1) 16-year (2004-2019) trends of individual lifestyle risk factors and a combined lifestyle risk index and 2) trends in socioeconomic inequalities in these risk factors, in New South Wales (NSW; Australia) adults. Data was sourced from the NSW Adult Population Health Survey, an annual telephone survey of NSW residents aged ≥16 years, totalling 191,905 completed surveys. Excessive alcohol consumption, current smoking, insufficient physical activity, insufficient fruit and/or vegetable consumption, sugar-sweetened beverage [SSB] consumption, and a combined lifestyle risk index (overall high-risk lifestyle defined as total number of lifestyle risk behaviours ≥2) were examined. Socioeconomic status was assessed using education attainment, postal area-level disadvantage measured by Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage (IRSD), and remoteness based on Accessibility-Remoteness Index of Australia Plus (ARIA+). Socioeconomic inequalities were examined as prevalence difference for absolute inequalities and prevalence ratio for relative inequalities. The prevalence of lifestyle behaviours by levels of each socioeconomic status variable were estimated using predicted probabilities from logistic regression models. After adjusting for covariates, there was a decrease in prevalence over time for most lifestyle risk behaviours. Between 2004 and 2019, the prevalence decreased for current smoking from 21.8% to 17.1%, insufficient physical activity from 39.1% to 30.9%, excessive alcohol consumption from 15.4% to 13.7%, daily SSB consumption from 29.9% to 21.2%, and overall high-risk lifestyle from 50.4% to 43.7%. Socioeconomic inequalities, based on one or more of the socioeconomic variables, increased over time for current smoking, insufficient physical activity, daily SSB consumption, and an overall high-risk lifestyle. Overall, the health behaviours of the NSW population improved between 2004 and 2019. However, some socioeconomic inequalities increased during this time, highlighting the need for effective public health strategies that seek to improve health behaviours among the most socioeconomically disadvantaged.

COVID-19 Australia: Epidemiology Report 36 Reporting period ending 28 February 2021

This is the thirty-sixth epidemiological report for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), reported in Australia as at 23:59 Australian Eastern Daylight Time [AEDT] 28 February 2021. It includes data on COVID-19 cases diagnosed in Australia and the international situation.