Background Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a clinician-performed evidence-based imaging modality that has multiple advantages in the evaluation of dyspnea caused by multiple disease processes, including COVID-19. Despite these advantages, few hospitalists have been trained to perform LUS. The aim of this study was to increase adoption and implementation of LUS during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic by using recurrent assessments of RE-AIM outcomes to iteratively revise our implementation strategies. Methods In an academic hospital, we implemented guidelines for the use of LUS in patients with COVID-19 in July 2020. Using a novel “RE-AIM dashboard,” we used an iterative process of evaluating the high-priority outcomes of Reach, Adoption, and Implementation at twice monthly intervals to inform revisions of our implementation strategies for LUS delivery (i.e., Iterative RE-AIM process). Using a convergent mixed methods design, we integrated quantitative RE-AIM outcomes with qualitative hospitalist interview data to understand the dynamic determinants of LUS Reach, Adoption, and Implementation. Results Over the 1-year study period, 453 LUSs were performed in 298 of 12,567 eligible inpatients with COVID-19 (Reach = 2%). These 453 LUS were ordered by 43 out of 86 eligible hospitalists (LUS order adoption = 50%). However, the LUSs were performed/supervised by only 8 of these 86 hospitalists, 4 of whom were required to complete LUS credentialing as members of the hospitalist procedure service (proceduralist adoption 75% vs 1.2% non-procedural hospitalists adoption). Qualitative and quantitative data obtained to evaluate this Iterative RE-AIM process led to the deployment of six sequential implementation strategies and 3 key findings including (1) there were COVID-19-specific barriers to LUS adoption, (2) hospitalists were more willing to learn to make clinical decisions using LUS images than obtain the images themselves, and (3) mandating the credentialing of a strategically selected sub-group may be a successful strategy for improving Reach. Conclusions Mandating use of a strategically selected subset of clinicians may be an effective strategy for improving Reach of LUS. Additionally, use of Iterative RE-AIM allowed for timely adjustments to implementation strategies, facilitating higher levels of LUS Adoption and Reach. Future studies should explore the replicability of these preliminary findings.

No abstract

Background There is an urgent and unmet need for accessible and credible health information within the transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) community. Currently, TGD individuals often seek and must find relevant resources by vetting social media posts. A resource that provides accessible and credible health-related resources and content via a mobile phone app may have a positive impact on and support the TGD population. Objective COVID-19 stay-at-home orders forced a shift in the methods used in participatory design. In this paper, we aimed to describe the web-based participatory methods used to develop the Transgender Health Information Resource. We also described and characterized the web-based engagement that occurred during a single session of the overall design process. Methods We planned and conducted web-based design sessions to replace the proposed in-person sessions. We used web-based collaborative tools, including Zoom (Zoom Video Communications), Mural (Mural), REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture; Vanderbilt University), and Justinmind (Justinmind), to engage the participants in the design process. Zoom was used as an integrated platform for design activities. Mural was used to perform exercises, such as free listing, brainstorming, and grouping. REDCap allowed us to collect survey responses. Justinmind was used to create prototypes that were shared and discussed via Zoom. Recruitment was led by one of our community partners, One Colorado, who used private Facebook groups in which web-based flyers were dispersed. The design process took place in several workshops over a period of 10 months. We described and characterized engagement during a single design session by tracking the number of influential interactions among participants. We defined an influential interaction as communication, either verbal or web-based content manipulation, that advanced the design process. Results We presented data from a single design session that lasted 1 hour and 48 minutes and included 4 participants. During the session, there were 301 influential interactions, consisting of 79 verbal comments and 222 web-based content manipulations. Conclusions Web-based participatory design can elicit input and decisions from participants to develop a health information resource, such as a mobile app user interface. Overall, participants were highly engaged. This approach maintained the benefits and fidelity of traditional in-person design sessions, mitigated deficits, and exploited the previously unconsidered benefits of web-based methods, such as enhancing the ability to participate for those who live far from academic institutions. The web-based approach to participatory design was an efficient and feasible methodological design approach.

Stakeholder engagement is increasingly expected by funders and valued by researchers in clinical and translational science, yet many researchers lack access to expert consultation or training in selecting appropriate stakeholder engagement methods. We describe the development of a novel Stakeholder Engagement Navigator webtool. We conducted an environmental scan and literature review, along with investigator interviews, surveys, and engagement expert facilitated group discussion. We formally reviewed and cataloged 29 distinct engagement methods. To develop the webtool, we used an iterative design process that followed Design Thinking phases: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. As prioritized during user testing, the Stakeholder Engagement Navigator webtool both educates and guides investigators in selecting an engagement method based on key criteria. The V1.0 Navigator webtool filters methods first by purpose of engagement (noted by 62% of users as the highest priority criteria), then by budget, time per stakeholder interaction, and total interactions. The tool is available at DICEMethods.org. The Stakeholder Engagement Navigator webtool is a user-centered, interactive webtool suitable for use by researchers seeking guidance on appropriate stakeholder engagement methods for clinical and translational research projects.