C Barr Taylor1,2, Josef I Ruzek1,2,3, Ellen E Fitzsimmons-Craft4, Andrea K Graham5, Katherine N Balantekin6. 1. Center for m2 Health, Palo Alto University, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 3. National Center for PTSD, Dissemination and Training Division, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System (VAPAHCS), Menlo Park, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 5. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, IL, USA. 6. Department of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We describe an approach to implementation and dissemination that focuses on changing outcomes variables within a large, defined population and attempts to provide cost-effective opportunities and resources-which might include the provision of both digital and traditional interventions-to address individual needs and interests. We present a case example of how aspects of this model are being applied to increase reach, engagement and outcomes for individuals who complete a national eating disorders screen, and are likely to have an eating disorder but who are not in treatment. We then describe how this model can apply to post-traumatic stress (PTS) and conclude with a discussion of limitations and issues with the model. METHODS: The National Eating Disorders Association (NEDA) provides online screening for eating disorders. RESULTS: From February 2017 through March 2018, over 200,000 individuals completed the NEDA screen. Of these, 96% screened positive or at risk for an eating disorder, and most of those who screened positive for a clinical/subclinical eating disorder were not currently in treatment. Less than 10% engaged in self-help or guided self-help online digital program, or expressed interest in calling a helpline for referral to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic digital approach to implementation and dissemination has the potential to increase the number of individuals who benefit from interventions in defined populations. Uptake rates need to be improved.
BACKGROUND: We describe an approach to implementation and dissemination that focuses on changing outcomes variables within a large, defined population and attempts to provide cost-effective opportunities and resources-which might include the provision of both digital and traditional interventions-to address individual needs and interests. We present a case example of how aspects of this model are being applied to increase reach, engagement and outcomes for individuals who complete a national eating disorders screen, and are likely to have an eating disorder but who are not in treatment. We then describe how this model can apply to post-traumatic stress (PTS) and conclude with a discussion of limitations and issues with the model. METHODS: The National Eating Disorders Association (NEDA) provides online screening for eating disorders. RESULTS: From February 2017 through March 2018, over 200,000 individuals completed the NEDA screen. Of these, 96% screened positive or at risk for an eating disorder, and most of those who screened positive for a clinical/subclinical eating disorder were not currently in treatment. Less than 10% engaged in self-help or guided self-help online digital program, or expressed interest in calling a helpline for referral to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic digital approach to implementation and dissemination has the potential to increase the number of individuals who benefit from interventions in defined populations. Uptake rates need to be improved.
Authors: Bradley E Karlin; Josef I Ruzek; Kathleen M Chard; Afsoon Eftekhari; Candice M Monson; Elizabeth A Hembree; Patricia A Resick; Edna B Foa Journal: J Trauma Stress Date: 2010-11-15
Authors: C Barr Taylor; Susan Bryson; Kristine H Luce; Darby Cunning; Angela Celio Doyle; Liana B Abascal; Roxanne Rockwell; Pavarti Dev; Andrew J Winzelberg; Denise E Wilfley Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2006-08
Authors: Charles C Engel; Thomas Oxman; Christopher Yamamoto; Darin Gould; Sheila Barry; Patrice Stewart; Kurt Kroenke; John W Williams; Allen J Dietrich Journal: Mil Med Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Ellen E Fitzsimmons-Craft; Katherine N Balantekin; Andrea K Graham; Lauren Smolar; Dan Park; Claire Mysko; Burkhardt Funk; C Barr Taylor; Denise E Wilfley Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: Barbara Nacke; Michael Zeiler; Stefanie Kuso; Lisa M Klesges; Corinna Jacobi; Karin Waldherr Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 3.367