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.

Evidence-based public health translation of research to practice is essential to improve the public's health. Dissemination and implementation researchers have explored what happens once practitioners adopt evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and have developed models and frameworks to describe the adaptation process. This scoping study identified and summarized adaptation frameworks in published reports and grey literature. We followed the recommended steps of a scoping study: (a) identifying the research question; (b) identifying relevant studies; (c) selecting studies; (d) charting the data; (e) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results; and (f) consulting with experts. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, PsycNET, and CINAHL databases for articles referencing adaptation frameworks for public health interventions in the published and gray literature, and from reference lists of framework articles. Two reviewers independently coded the frameworks and their steps and identified common steps. We found 13 adaptation frameworks with 11 program adaptation steps: (a) assess community, (b) understand the EBI(s), (c) select the EBI, (d) consult with experts, (e) consult with stakeholders, (f) decide on needed adaptations, (g) adapt the original EBI, (h) train staff, (i) test the adapted materials, (j) implement the adapted EBI, and (k) evaluate. Eight of these steps were recommended by more than five frameworks: #1-3, 6-7, and 9-11. This study is the first to systematically identify, review, describe, and summarize frameworks for adapting EBIs. It contributes to the literature by consolidating key steps in program adaptation of EBIs and describing the associated tasks in each step.

No abstract

Background: Recovery from spine surgery is oriented toward restoring functional health outcomes while reducing resource use. Optimal pain management is a key to reaching these objectives. We compared outcomes of spine surgery patients who received standard pain management including intravenous (IV) acetaminophen (APAP) vs. oral APAP. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the Premier database (January 2012 to September 2015) comparing spine surgery patients who received pain management with IV APAP to those who received oral APAP, with no exclusions based on additional pain management. We performed multivariable logistic regression for the discharge and all cause 30-day readmission to the same hospital outcomes and instrumental variable regressions using the quarterly rate of IV APAP use for all hospitalizations by hospital as the instrument in two-stage least squares regressions for length of stay (LOS), hospitalization costs, and average daily morphine equivalent dose (MED) outcomes. Models adjusted for age, gender, race, admission type, 3M All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group severity of illness and risk of mortality, hospital size, and indicators for whether the hospital was an academic center and whether it was urban or rural. Results: We identified 112,586 spine surgery patients with 51,835 (46%) having received IV APAP. Subjects averaged 57 and 59 years of age respectively in the IV APAP and oral APAP cohorts and were predominantly non-Hispanic Caucasians and female. In our adjusted models, IV APAP was associated with 0.68 days shorter LOS (95% CI: À0.76 to À0.59, p < .0001), $1175 lower hospitalization costs (95% CI: À$1611 to À$739, p < .0001), 13 mg lower average daily MED (95% CI: À14 mg to À12 mg, p < .0001), 34% lower risk of discharge to a skilled nursing facility (95% CI: 0.63 to 0.69, p < .0001), and 13% less risk of 30-day readmission (95% CI: 0.73 to 1.03). Conclusions: Compared to oral APAP, managing post-spine-surgery pain with IV APAP is associated with less resource use, lower costs, lower doses of opioids, and improved discharge status.

No abstract