Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38106893›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in public health2023

Using the exploration, preparation, implementation, sustainment (EPIS) framework to assess the cooperative re-engagement controlled trial (CoRECT).

Heather Elder, Simona G Lang, Merceditas Villanueva, Betsey John, Kathleen Roosevelt, Frederick L Altice, Kathleen A Brady, Briana Gibson, Marianne Buchelli, Alfred DeMaria and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Heather ElderMassachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.
Simona G LangMassachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.
Merceditas VillanuevaYale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
Betsey JohnMassachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.
Kathleen RooseveltMassachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.
Frederick L AlticeYale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
Kathleen A BradyPhiladelphia Department of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Briana GibsonPhiladelphia Department of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Marianne BuchelliConnecticut Department of Public Health, Hartford, CT, United States.
Alfred DeMariaMassachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.
Liisa M RandallMassachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: "Data to Care" (D2C) is a strategy which relies on a combination of public health surveillance data supplemented by clinic data to support continuity of HIV care. The Cooperative Re-Engagement Controlled Trial (CoRECT) was a CDC-sponsored randomized controlled trial of a D2C model, which provided an opportunity to examine the process of implementing an intervention for people with HIV (PWH) who are out-of-care across three public health department jurisdictions. Using the EPIS (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment) framework, we aimed to retrospectively describe the implementation process for each site to provide insights and guidance to inform future D2C activities implemented by public health agencies and their clinical and community partners. Methods: After completion of CoRECT, the three (Connecticut, Massachusetts, Philadelphia) trial sites reviewed study protocols and held iterative discussions to describe and compare their processes regarding case identification, interactions with partnering clinics and patients, and sustainability. The EPIS framework provided a structure for comparing key organizational and operational practices and was applied to the entire implementation process. Results: The trial sites varied in their implementation processes and the specific elements of the intervention. Factors including prior D2C experience, data management and analytic infrastructure, staff capacity, and relationships with clinic partners informed intervention development and implementation. Additionally, this review identified key lessons learned including to: (1) explore new supplemental sources for public health surveillance data; (2) work with stakeholders representing core functions/components in the early stages of the intervention design process; (3) build flexibility into all components of the follow-up activities; and (4) integrate data sharing, project management, and follow-up activities within existing DPH organizational structure. Conclusion: The CoRECT study provides a general blueprint and lessons learned for implementing a D2C intervention for re-engagement in HIV care. Interventions should be tailored to local operational and structural factors, and responsive to evolving clinical and public health practices.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsResearch DesignHumansMassachusettsPublic HealthRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective StudiesEPIS frameworkHIVimplementation scienceout-of-careRCT – randomized controlled trialre-engagement

Identifiers

PMID38106893
PMCPMC10722986

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.