Background Screening in primary care for unmet individual social needs (e.g., housing instability, food insecurity, unemployment, social isolation) is critical to addressing their deleterious effects on patients’ health outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the first study to apply an implementation science framework to identify implementation factors and best practices for social needs screening and response. Methods Guided by the Health Equity Implementation Framework (HEIF), we collected qualitative data from clinicians and patients to evaluate barriers and facilitators to implementing the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients’ Assets, Risks, and Experiences (PRAPARE), a standardized social needs screening and response protocol, in a federally qualified health center. Eligible patients who received the PRAPARE as a standard of care were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. We also obtained front-line clinician perspectives in a semi-structured focus group. HEIF domains informed a directed content analysis. Results Patients and clinicians (i.e., case managers) reported implementation barriers and facilitators across multiple domains (e.g., clinical encounters, patient and provider factors, inner context, outer context, and societal influence). Implementation barriers included structural and policy level determinants related to resource availability, discrimination, and administrative burden. Facilitators included evidence-based clinical techniques for shared decision making (e.g., motivational interviewing), team-based staffing models, and beliefs related to alignment of the PRAPARE with patient-centered care. We found high levels of patient acceptability and opportunities for adaptation to increase equitable adoption and reach. Conclusion Our results provide practical insight into the implementation of the PRAPARE or similar social needs screening and response protocols in primary care at the individual encounter, organizational, community, and societal levels. Future research should focus on developing discrete implementation strategies to promote social needs screening and response, and associated multisector care coordination to improve health outcomes and equity for vulnerable and marginalized patient populations.

Findings suggest that insulin restriction may be less likely in the morning, and that late afternoon is a potentially important time for additional therapeutic support. Results also suggest that systematic clinical assessment and treatment of overnight eating might improve T1D management.

Background Eating disorders (EDs) among individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) increase the risk of early and severe diabetes-related medical complications and premature death. Conventional eating disorder (ED) treatments have been largely ineffective for T1D patients, indicating the need to tailor treatments to this patient population and the unique conditions under which ED symptoms emerge (in the context of a chronic illness with unrelenting demands to control blood glucose, diet and exercise). The current study was a pilot open trial of iACT, a novel intervention for EDs in T1D grounded in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). iACT was based on the premise that ED symptoms emerge as individuals attempt to cope with T1D and related emotional distress. iACT taught acceptance and mindfulness as an alternative to maladaptive avoidance and control, and leveraged personal values to increase willingness to engage in T1D management, even when it was upsetting (e.g., after overeating). A tailored mobile application (“app”) was used in between sessions to facilitate the application of ACT skills in the moment that individuals are making decisions about their diabetes management. Methods Adults with T1D who met criteria for an ED completed 12 sessions of iACT (with three optional tapering sessions). In addition to examining whether treatment was acceptable and feasible (the primary aim of the study), the study also examined whether iACT was associated with increased psychological flexibility (i.e., the ability to have distressing thoughts/feelings about diabetes while pursuing personally meaningful values), and improvements in ED symptoms, diabetes management and diabetes distress. Results Treatment was acceptable to T1D patients with EDs and feasible to implement. Participants reported increased psychological flexibility with diabetes-related thoughts/feelings, and less obstruction and greater progress in pursuing personal values. There were large effects for change in ED symptoms, diabetes self-management and diabetes distress from baseline to end-of-treatment (Cohen’s d = .90–1.79). Hemoglobin A1c also improved, but the p-value did not reach statistical significance, p = .08. Conclusions Findings provide preliminary evidence for iACT to improve outcomes for T1D patients with EDs and support further evaluation of this approach in a controlled trial. Trial registration NCT02980627. Registered 8 July 2016.