Julia C Dombrowski1,2, Mary Irvine3, Denis Nash4,5, Graham Harriman3, Matthew R Golden1,2. 1. Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 2. HIV/STD Program, Public Health-Seattle & King County, Seattle, WA. 3. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, NY. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, City University of New York, New York, NY. 5. Institute for Implementation Science in Population Health, City University of New York, New York, NY.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The evidence-practice gap in HIV prevention and the care continuum in the United States often reflects a mismatch between the perspectives of researchers and public health practitioners. The traditional research paradigm of sequential progress from efficacy research to implementation in practice and widespread scale-up is not well-aligned with the reality of health department program implementation. SETTING: This article focuses on public health practice carried out by state and local health departments in the United States and the research intended to inform it. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this narrative review, we discuss approaches to HIV prevention and care continuum research that are shaped by and responsive to public health practice implementation priorities and what is needed to promote productive and successful university-health department research partnerships. We review research methods of particular relevance to health departments to evaluate the effectiveness of HIV prevention and care continuum interventions and how these approaches diverge from traditional research approaches. Finally, we highlight the roles of federal agencies in supporting practice-driven HIV implementation research. CONCLUSIONS: Health departments are key stakeholders, consumers, and generators of the evidence base for public health practice. High-impact research to improve HIV prevention and the care continuum is informed by health department priorities and current practice from the start. Long-term, equitable relationships between universities and health departments are crucial to advance practice-driven research.
BACKGROUND: The evidence-practice gap in HIV prevention and the care continuum in the United States often reflects a mismatch between the perspectives of researchers and public health practitioners. The traditional research paradigm of sequential progress from efficacy research to implementation in practice and widespread scale-up is not well-aligned with the reality of health department program implementation. SETTING: This article focuses on public health practice carried out by state and local health departments in the United States and the research intended to inform it. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this narrative review, we discuss approaches to HIV prevention and care continuum research that are shaped by and responsive to public health practice implementation priorities and what is needed to promote productive and successful university-health department research partnerships. We review research methods of particular relevance to health departments to evaluate the effectiveness of HIV prevention and care continuum interventions and how these approaches diverge from traditional research approaches. Finally, we highlight the roles of federal agencies in supporting practice-driven HIV implementation research. CONCLUSIONS: Health departments are key stakeholders, consumers, and generators of the evidence base for public health practice. High-impact research to improve HIV prevention and the care continuum is informed by health department priorities and current practice from the start. Long-term, equitable relationships between universities and health departments are crucial to advance practice-driven research.
Authors: McKaylee M Robertson; Levi Waldron; Rebekkah S Robbins; Stephanie Chamberlin; Kate Penrose; Bruce Levin; Sarah Kulkarni; Sarah L Braunstein; Mary K Irvine; Denis Nash Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Julia C Dombrowski; James P Hughes; Susan E Buskin; Amy Bennett; David Katz; Mark Fleming; Angela Nunez; Matthew R Golden Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Andrew E Grulich; Rebecca Guy; Janaki Amin; Fengyi Jin; Christine Selvey; Jo Holden; Heather-Marie A Schmidt; Iryna Zablotska; Karen Price; Bill Whittaker; Kerry Chant; Craig Cooper; Scott McGill; Barbara Telfer; Barbara Yeung; Gesalit Levitt; Erin E Ogilvie; Nila J Dharan; Mohamed A Hammoud; Stefanie Vaccher; Lucy Watchirs-Smith; Anna McNulty; David J Smith; Debra M Allen; David Baker; Mark Bloch; Rohan I Bopage; Katherine Brown; Andrew Carr; Christopher J Carmody; Kym L Collins; Robert Finlayson; Rosalind Foster; Eva Y Jackson; David A Lewis; Josephine Lusk; Catherine C O'Connor; Nathan Ryder; Emanuel Vlahakis; Phillip Read; David A Cooper Journal: Lancet HIV Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 12.767
Authors: Molly M Simmons; Sonya Gabrielian; Thomas Byrne; Megan B McCullough; Jeffery L Smith; Thom J Taylor; Tom P O'Toole; Vincent Kane; Vera Yakovchenko; D Keith McInnes; David A Smelson Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Denis Nash; McKaylee M Robertson; Kate Penrose; Stephanie Chamberlin; Rebekkah S Robbins; Sarah L Braunstein; Julie E Myers; Bisrat Abraham; Sarah Kulkarni; Levi Waldron; Bruce Levin; Mary K Irvine Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 3.240