Beyond its physical health impact, the COVID-19 pandemic also resulted in grief from loss of loved ones, isolation due to social distancing, stress, fear, and economic distress-all of which impacted mental health. How Right Now/Qué Hacer Ahora (HRN) is an award-winning, national campaign that provides emotional support to people disproportionately affected by COVID-19. We conducted a theory-based, culturally responsive evaluation to assess the campaign's effect on coping behaviors and resiliency between summer 2020 and spring 2021. We surveyed HRN's priority audiences (older adults/caregivers and those with preexisting health conditions, experiencing violence, or economic distress) in English and Spanish using NORC's national probability panel, AmeriSpeak, over three waves. We also analyzed social media data and monitored HRN website traffic and triangulated these data to understand the campaign's full impact. Campaign exposure was associated with people who were experiencing higher levels of stress and were more likely to seek information to support their emotional well-being. Campaign exposure was also positively associated with increased feelings of resilience and confidence in using coping strategies, especially for people experiencing violence or economic distress and people from racial and ethnic groups. Findings demonstrate the campaign's success in reaching its intended audiences with the mental health support they needed. Additionally, the HRN evaluation's design illustrates how the use of multiple data sources can elucidate a deeper understanding of campaign impact. Findings underscore that culturally responsive health communication interventions-like HRN-can provide needed mental health support and resources to disproportionately affected communities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Public health policy interventions are associated with many important public health achievements. To provide public health practitioners and decision makers with practical approaches for examining and employing evidence-based public health (EBPH) policy interventions, we describe the characteristics and benefits that distinguish EBPH policy interventions from programmatic interventions. These characteristics include focusing on health at a population level, focusing on upstream drivers of health, and involving less individual action than programmatic interventions. The benefits of EBPH policy interventions include more sustained effects on health than many programs and an enhanced ability to address health inequities. Early childhood education and universal preschool provide a case example that illustrates the distinction between EBPH policy and programmatic interventions. This review serves as the foundation for 3 concepts that support the effective use of public health policy interventions: applying core component thinking to understand the population health effects of EBPH policy interventions; understanding the influence of existing policies, policy supports, and the context in which a particular policy is implemented on the effectiveness of that policy; and employing a systems thinking approach to identify leverage points where policy implementation can have a meaningful effect.

A growing body of literature uses the concept of core components to better understand small-scale programmatic interventions. Instead of interventions being viewed as unitary "black boxes," interventions are viewed as configurations of core components, which are the parts of interventions that carry their causal potential and therefore need to be reproduced with fidelity to produce the intended effect. To date, the concept of core components has not been as widely applied to public health policy interventions as it has to programmatic interventions. The purpose of this topical review is to familiarize public health practitioners and policy makers with the concept of core components as applied to public health policy interventions. Raising the profile of core component thinking can foster mindful adaptation and implementation of public health policy interventions while encouraging further research to enhance the supporting evidence base. We present 3 types of multilevel interactions in which the core components of a public health policy intervention produce effects at the population level by (1) seeking to directly affect individual behavior, (2) facilitating adoption of programmatic interventions by intermediaries, and (3) encouraging intermediaries to take action that can shape changes in upstream drivers of population health. Changing the unit of analysis from whole policies to core components can provide a basis for understanding how policies work and for facilitating novel evidence-generating strategies and rapid evidence reviews that can inform future adaptation efforts.

Objective: We sought to characterize patterns of utilization of telemental health among commercially insured individuals over the decade preceding COVID-19. Methods: We developed telemental health service groups from the US PharMetrics Plus database, using diagnostic codes to identify those diagnosed with mental health conditions and procedure codes to capture mental health visits delivered via telehealth sessions. We analyzed 2 indicators of utilization between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019: (1) the percentage of patients with mental health needs who used telemental health services and (2) the percentage of all mental health services provided via telehealth. We stratified our analyses by year, patient gender, patient age, and geographic region. Results: The proportion of mental health visits delivered via telemental health increased from 0.002% to 0.162% between 2010 and 2019. A larger proportion of males received telemental health services as compared to females; however, the proportion of mental health visits delivered via telehealth was higher for females than for males. Patients aged 18 to 34 years and those in the western US had the highest utilization compared to other age groups and geographic regions. Conclusions: Telemental health utilization comprised a small fraction of overall mental health services and beneficiaries in the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus claims data, but increased over time, with differences documented in utilization based on patient gender, patient age, geographic region, and type of telemental health claim. Evidence from this study may serve as a pre-pandemic baseline for comparison against future evaluations of telehealth expansion policies.

CONTEXT: Public health policy can play an important role in improving public health outcomes. Accordingly, there has been an increasing emphasis by policy makers on identifying and implementing evidence-informed public health policy interventions. PROGRAM OR POLICY: Growth and refinement of the field of research assessing the impact of legal interventions on health outcomes, known as legal epidemiology, prompted this review of studies on the relationship between laws and health or economic outcomes. IMPLEMENTATION: Authors systematically searched 8 major literature databases for all English language journal articles that assessed the effect of a law on health and economic outcomes published between January 1, 2009, and September 18, 2019. This search generated 12 570 unique articles 177 of which met inclusion criteria. The team conducting the systematic review was a multidisciplinary team that included health economists and public health policy researchers, as well as public health lawyers with expertise in legal epidemiological research methods. The authors identified and assessed the types of methods used to measure the laws' health impact. EVALUATION: In this review, the authors examine how legal epidemiological research methods have been described in the literature as well as trends among the studies. Overall, 3 major themes emerged from this study: (1) limited variability in the sources of the health data across the studies, (2) limited differences in the methodological approaches used to connect law to health outcomes, and (3) lack of transparency surrounding the source and quality of the legal data relied upon. DISCUSSION: Through highlighting public health law research methodologies, this systematic review may inform researchers, practitioners, and lawmakers on how to better examine and understand the impacts of legal interventions on health and economic outcomes. Findings may serve as a source of suggested practices in conducting legal epidemiological outcomes research and identifying conceptual and method-related gaps in the literature.

CONTEXT: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a long history of using high-quality science to drive public health action that has improved the health, safety, and well-being of people in the United States and globally. To ensure scientific quality, manuscripts authored by CDC staff are required to undergo an internal review and approval process known as clearance. During 2022, CDC launched a scientific clearance transformation initiative to improve the efficiency of the clearance process while ensuring scientific quality. PROGRAM: As part of the scientific clearance transformation initiative, a group of senior scientists across CDC developed a framework called the Domains of Excellence for High-Quality Publications (DOE framework). The framework includes 7 areas ("domains") that authors can consider for developing high-quality and impactful scientific manuscripts: Clarity, Scientific Rigor, Public Health Relevance, Policy Content, Ethical Standards, Collaboration, and Health Equity. Each domain includes multiple quality elements, highlighting specific key considerations within. IMPLEMENTATION: CDC scientists are expected to use the DOE framework when conceptualizing, developing, revising, and reviewing scientific products to support collaboration and to ensure the quality and impact of their scientific manuscripts. DISCUSSION: The DOE framework sets expectations for a consistent standard for scientific manuscripts across CDC and promotes collaboration among authors, partners, and other subject matter experts. Many aspects have broad applicability to the public health field at large and might be relevant for others developing high-quality manuscripts in public health science. The framework can serve as a useful reference document for CDC authors and others in the public health community as they prepare scientific manuscripts for publication and dissemination.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, an urgent need existed for near-real-time data collection to better understand how individual beliefs and behaviors, state and local policies, and organizational practices influenced health outcomes. We describe the processes, methods, and lessons learned during the development and pilot testing of an innovative rapid data collection process we developed to inform decision-making during the COVID-19 public health emergency. We used a fully integrated mixed-methods approach to develop a structured process for triangulating quantitative and qualitative data from traditional (cross-sectional surveys, focus groups) and nontraditional (social media listening) sources. Respondents included students, parents, teachers, and key school personnel (eg, nurses, administrators, mental health providers). During the pilot phase (February-June 2021), data from 12 cross-sectional and sector-based surveys (n = 20 302 participants), 28 crowdsourced surveys (n = 26 820 participants), 10 focus groups (n = 64 participants), and 11 social media platforms (n = 432 754 503 responses) were triangulated with other data to support COVID-19 mitigation in schools. We disseminated findings through internal dashboards, triangulation reports, and policy briefs. This pilot demonstrated that triangulating traditional and nontraditional data sources can provide rapid data about barriers and facilitators to mitigation implementation during an evolving public health emergency. Such a rapid feedback and continuous improvement model can be tailored to strengthen response efforts. This approach emphasizes the value of nimble data modernization efforts to respond in real time to public health emergencies.

Mask wearing is a critical mitigation strategy in preventing the introduction and spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), within school settings. In October 2020, a sample of 3,953 middle and high school students aged 13–21 years who were attending in-person classes were asked about mask use by fellow students in several settings. Approximately 65% of students reported that fellow students wore a mask “all the time” in the classroom and in hallways or stairwells. However, reported use of masks all the time was lower in other indoor locations, including school buses (42%), restrooms (40%), and the cafeteria (when not eating) (36%). Reported observed mask use all the time was lowest during sports or extracurricular activities (28%) and outside on school property (25%).

OBJECTIVES: How Right Now (HRN) is an evidence-based, culturally responsive communication campaign developed to facilitate coping and resilience among US groups disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. To inform the development of this campaign, we examined patterns in emotional health, stress, and coping strategies among HRN's audiences, focusing on differences among racial and ethnic groups. METHODS: We used a national probability panel, AmeriSpeak, to collect survey data from HRN's priority audience members in English and Spanish at 2 time points (May 2020 and May 2021). We conducted statistical testing to examine differences between time points for each subgroup (Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White) and differences among subgroups at each time point. RESULTS: We found disparities in COVID-19-related mental health challenges and differences in coping strategies. Non-Hispanic Black respondents were more likely than non-Hispanic White respondents to report challenges related to the social determinants of health, such as affording food and housing (26.4% vs 9.4% in May 2020) and experiencing personal financial loss (46.6% vs 29.2% in May 2020). In May 2021, 30.6% of Hispanic respondents reported being unable to meet basic food or housing needs versus 8.2% of non-Hispanic White respondents, and 51.6% reported personal financial loss versus 26.5% of non-Hispanic White respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Our study further illuminates what is needed to build emotional well-being pathways for people who historically have been economically and socially marginalized. Our findings underscore the need for public health interventions to provide culturally responsive mental health support to populations disproportionately affected by COVID-19 during the pandemic and into the future, with a focus on racial and ethnic disparities.

PURPOSE: This study estimates the rural-urban differences in outpatient service utilization and expenditures for depression, anxiety disorder, and substance use disorder, and the evolving mental health provider mix for privately insured US adults aged 18-64 during 2005-2018. METHODS: We used the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database for individuals covered by employer-sponsored health insurance, from 2005 to 2018, with a yearly total number of beneficiaries ranging from 17.5 to 53.1 million. Claims for nonelderly adults with mental health and substance abuse coverage are included. Outcomes include rates of outpatient service utilization for depression, anxiety disorder, and substance use disorder; counts of outpatient visits; expenditure and share of the out-of-pocket cost; and the mental health services provider mix. FINDINGS: Rural enrollees were less likely than urban enrollees to use outpatient mental health services for depression by 1.2% (percentage points) in 2005 and 0.6% in 2018. Among those who used outpatient mental health services, rural enrollees had fewer outpatient visits than their urban counterparts (difference: 1.8-2.4 visits for depression, 1.2-1.7 visits for anxiety disorder, and 0.7-2.1 visits for substance use disorder). Rural patients paid less per year for mental health outpatient visits of the 3 conditions but incurred a higher share of out-of-pocket expenses. Rural and urban patients differ in the mix of mental health providers, with rural enrollees relying more on primary care providers than urban enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: Rural-urban disparities in access to mental health services persist during 2005-2018 among a population with private insurance.

INTRODUCTION: Heart disease, cancer, unintentional injury, chronic lower respiratory disease, and stroke are the 5 leading causes of death in the U.S. The objective of this review is to examine the economic value of prevention interventions addressing these 5 conditions. METHODS: Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry data were queried from 2010 to 2018 for interventions that addressed any of the 5 conditions in the U.S. Results were stratified by condition, prevention stage, type of intervention, study sponsorship, and study perspective. The analyses were conducted in 2020, and all costs were reported in 2019 dollars. RESULTS: In total, 549 cost-effectiveness analysis studies examined interventions addressing these 5 conditions in the U.S. Tertiary prevention interventions were assessed in 61.4%, whereas primary prevention was assessed in 8.6% of the studies. Primary prevention studies were predominantly funded by government, whereas industry sources funded more tertiary prevention studies, especially those dealing with pharmaceutical interventions. The median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the 5 conditions combined was $68,500 per quality-adjusted life year. Median incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were lowest for primary prevention and highest for tertiary prevention. DISCUSSION: Primary prevention may be more cost effective than secondary and tertiary prevention interventions; however, research investments in primary prevention interventions, especially by industry, lag in comparison. These findings help to highlight the gaps in the cost-effectiveness analysis literature related to the 5 leading causes of death and identify understudied interventions and prevention stages for each condition.

Pandemics are stressful times, full of uncertainty and fear. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many Americans have experienced feelings of stress, grief, and loss. How Right Now (HRN) – and its Spanish-language counterpart, Qué Hacer Ahora (QHA) – is an evidence-based, culturally-relevant communication campaign designed to promote and strengthen the emotional well-being and resiliency of populations adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) with support from the CDC Foundation, the campaign aims to help all Americans but has a specific focus on some of the disproportionately affected groups, including adults over 65 and their caregivers, individuals with pre-existing physical and mental health conditions, people experiencing violence, and those experiencing economic distress. Based on rapid, but robust, formative research, HRN offers audience-centric messages representing the real, everyday experiences and emotions that these audiences are having and addresses them in actionable ways. These include messages that address the social and structural barrier that disproportionately-affected groups have been facing long before the pandemic — and which are felt more acutely now. This paper provides an overview of the rapid, mixed-method, culturally-responsive formative research process undertaken to inform the development of HRN. Specifically, it describes how HRN’s disproportionately-affected audiences describe and discuss their emotiona well-being during COVID-19 through the lens of Social Determinants of Health (SDOH). We introduce a secondary theory, Vital Conditions for Health and Well-Being (VCHW), which conceptualizes holistic well-being and the conditions that give rise to it and identifies levers for community change and improvement. Data collection methods included an environmental scan (n≥700 publications); social listening (n≥1 million social media posts); partner needs-assessment calls (n=16); partner-convened listening sessions with community members (n=29), online focus groups (n=10), and a national probability survey (n=731), all in English and Spanish. Findings suggest that HRN’s priority audiences’ emotional well-being and SDOH are interconnected. Disruptions in SDOH du to the COVID-19 pandemic can lead to emotional well-being challenges (e.g., anxiety) for HRN’s priority audiences. While some disruptions may lead some people to adapt, connect with others, and be more resilient, there is a disparate impact of emotional well-being amid COVID-19 for those already experiencing disparities linked to SDOH. Understanding the perspectives and experiences of disproportionately affected populations through the lens of SDOH is vital to identifying the kinds of supports and services – like How Right Now/Qué Hacer Ahora – required for these populations. © 2021 Weston Medical Publishing. All rights reserved.

The How Right Now communication initiative (HRN) was developed to facilitate resilience amid the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. HRN was designed as a conduit for promoting mental health and addressing feelings of grief, worry, and stress experienced during this time. This article provides an overview of the rapid, mixed-method, culturally responsive formative research process undertaken to inform the development of HRN. Specifically, it describes how HRN's disproportionately affected audiences (adults aged 65 and older and their caregivers, adults with preexisting physical and mental health conditions, adults experiencing violence, and adults experiencing economic distress) describe and discuss emotional resilience, what they need to be resilient, and what factors contribute to the perceptions of their ability to "bounce back" from the conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Data collection methods included an environmental scan (n >= 700 publications), social listening (n >= 1 million social media posts), partner needs-assessment calls (n = 16), partner-convened listening sessions with community members (n = 29), online focus groups (n = 58), and a national probability survey (n = 731), all in English and Spanish. Results revealed that HRN's audiences have diverse perceptions of what constitutes resilience. However, common factors were identified across populations to support resilience amid the COVID-19 pandemic, including informal and formal social support and access to services to meet basic needs, including food and housing resources. Stress, anxiety, depression, and experience with stigma and discrimination were also linked to resilience. Understanding the perspectives and experiences of disproportionately affected populations is vital to identifying supports and services, including the engagement of community stakeholders. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

The How Right Now communication initiative (HRN) was developed to facilitate resilience amid the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. HRN was designed as a conduit for promoting mental health and addressing feelings of grief, worry, and stress experienced during this time. This article provides an overview of the rapid, mixed-method, culturally responsive formative research process undertaken to inform the development of HRN. Specifically, it describes how HRN's disproportionately affected audiences (adults aged 65 and older and their caregivers, adults with preexisting physical and mental health conditions, adults experiencing violence, and adults experiencing economic distress) describe and discuss emotional resilience, what they need to be resilient, and what factors contribute to the perceptions of their ability to "bounce back" from the conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Data collection methods included an environmental scan (n >= 700 publications), social listening (n >= 1 million social media posts), partner needs-assessment calls (n = 16), partner-convened listening sessions with community members (n = 29), online focus groups (n = 58), and a national probability survey (n = 731), all in English and Spanish. Results revealed that HRN's audiences have diverse perceptions of what constitutes resilience. However, common factors were identified across populations to support resilience amid the COVID-19 pandemic, including informal and formal social support and access to services to meet basic needs, including food and housing resources. Stress, anxiety, depression, and experience with stigma and discrimination were also linked to resilience. Understanding the perspectives and experiences of disproportionately affected populations is vital to identifying supports and services, including the engagement of community stakeholders. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

IMPORTANCE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, associated mitigation measures, and social and economic impacts may affect mental health, suicidal behavior, substance use, and violence. OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in US emergency department (ED) visits for mental health conditions (MHCs), suicide attempts (SAs), overdose (OD), and violence outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Syndromic Surveillance Program to examine national changes in ED visits for MHCs, SAs, ODs, and violence from December 30, 2018, to October 10, 2020 (before and during the COVID-19 pandemic). The National Syndromic Surveillance Program captures approximately 70% of US ED visits from more than 3500 EDs that cover 48 states and Washington, DC. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcome measures were MHCs, SAs, all drug ODs, opioid ODs, intimate partner violence (IPV), and suspected child abuse and neglect (SCAN) ED visit counts and rates. Weekly ED visit counts and rates were computed overall and stratified by sex. RESULTS: From December 30, 2018, to October 10, 2020, a total of 187 508 065 total ED visits (53.6% female and 46.1% male) were captured; 6 018 318 included at least 1 study outcome (visits not mutually exclusive). Total ED visit volume decreased after COVID-19 mitigation measures were implemented in the US beginning on March 16, 2020. Weekly ED visit counts for all 6 outcomes decreased between March 8 and 28, 2020 (March 8: MHCs = 42 903, SAs = 5212, all ODs = 14 543, opioid ODs = 4752, IPV = 444, and SCAN = 1090; March 28: MHCs = 17 574, SAs = 4241, all ODs = 12 399, opioid ODs = 4306, IPV = 347, and SCAN = 487). Conversely, ED visit rates increased beginning the week of March 22 to 28, 2020. When the median ED visit counts between March 15 and October 10, 2020, were compared with the same period in 2019, the 2020 counts were significantly higher for SAs (n = 4940 vs 4656, P = .02), all ODs (n = 15 604 vs 13 371, P < .001), and opioid ODs (n = 5502 vs 4168, P < .001); counts were significantly lower for IPV ED visits (n = 442 vs 484, P < .001) and SCAN ED visits (n = 884 vs 1038, P < .001). Median rates during the same period were significantly higher in 2020 compared with 2019 for all outcomes except IPV. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These findings suggest that ED care seeking shifts during a pandemic, underscoring the need to integrate mental health, substance use, and violence screening and prevention services into response activities during public health crises.

In 2019, approximately 51 million U.S. adults aged ≥18 years reported any mental illness,* and 7.7% reported a past-year substance use disorder(†) (1). Although reported prevalence estimates of certain mental disorders, substance use, or substance use disorders are not generally higher among racial and ethnic minority groups, persons in these groups are often less likely to receive treatment services (1). Persistent systemic social inequities and discrimination related to living conditions and work environments, which contribute to disparities in underlying medical conditions, can further compound health problems faced by members of racial and ethnic minority groups during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and worsen stress and associated mental health concerns (2,3). In April and May 2020, opt-in Internet panel surveys of English-speaking U.S. adults aged ≥18 years were conducted to assess the prevalence of self-reported mental health conditions and initiation of or increases in substance use to cope with stress, psychosocial stressors, and social determinants of health. Combined prevalence estimates of current depression, initiating or increasing substance use, and suicidal thoughts/ideation were 28.6%, 18.2%, and 8.4%, respectively. Hispanic/Latino (Hispanic) adults reported a higher prevalence of psychosocial stress related to not having enough food or stable housing than did adults in other racial and ethnic groups. These estimates highlight the importance of population-level and tailored interventions for mental health promotion and mental illness prevention, substance use prevention, screening and treatment services, and increased provision of resources to address social determinants of health. How Right Now (Qué Hacer Ahora) is an evidence-based and culturally appropriate communications campaign designed to promote and strengthen the emotional well-being and resiliency of populations adversely affected by COVID-19-related stress, grief, and loss (4).

The Commissioned Corps of the US Public Health Service (USPHS) is 1 of the 7 US uniformed services. Under the leadership of the US Surgeon General, USPHS has approximately 6800 commissioned officers, who span multiple categories of health service professionals and work for various agencies within the US Department of Health and Human Services. In addition to the US Air Force, US Army, US Navy, and US Department of Veterans Affairs, USPHS is recognized as an American Medical Association (AMA) Federal Services Member Organization and, therefore, holds a seat in the AMA House of Delegates (HOD).

The May 2016 special issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine on using economics to inform U.S. public health policy highlighted several ways that economics has been used in public health and suggested additional opportunities to accelerate public health impact.1 This special issue was a first of its kind, and was much needed, long overdue, and highlighted the contributions of economics in informing public health policy. Furthering this work requires sustained momentum and a broader application of economics to U.S. public health decision making. Even though high-quality economic evidence exists, there is limited knowledge on how best to ensure its use in public health decision making. This paper discusses this all too familiar application gap and outlines a proposed integrated approach (knowledge brokers in the Interactive Systems Framework) for increasing the uptake of economic evidence to inform public health decision making. Here economic evidence is defined broadly and means any kind of cost information that is relevant and of interest to decision makers.

The need for new ways to bridge the gap between research and practice is clear; the use of evidence-based prevention programs and implementation with fidelity in practice are strikingly limited. The Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation (ISF) was created to help bridge research and practice by specifying the systems and processes required to support dissemination and implementation of evidence-based programs, processes, practices, and policies. The ISF identifies three key systems necessary for this process which include the Synthesis and Translation System, the Support System, and the Delivery System. The ISF was featured in a special issue of the American Journal of Community Psychology in 2008. This special issue extends that work by including both researchers who have applied an ISF lens to aspects of their current work and researchers who have proactively applied the ISF in a process that goes across the various systems of the ISF, i.e., Synthesis and Translation, Support, and Delivery. Content areas include: children's mental health, teen pregnancy prevention, HIV prevention, violence prevention, heart disease and stroke prevention, breast cancer prevention, and substance abuse prevention. In this introductory article, we provide a brief description of the history of the ISF and a summary of the articles in the special issue.

Coordination of mental health services in children with serious emotional disturbance (SED) has shown a preliminary relationship to positive outcomes in children. Yet, research in this area is sparse. Therefore, the relation between service coordination activities and adaptive functioning was examined for 51 children SED who were treated in the school-based Intensive Mental Health Program for elementary school students (IMHP; average treatment length was 12 months; mean age 9.37 at intake). Systematic review of detailed case records identified 16,669 episodes of service coordination that could be coded reliably for frequency, quality, and purpose (planning, linking, monitoring) of the service coordination component. Adaptive functioning was measured by Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) ratings and daily points earned on the behavior management system of the IMHP at intake, 6, 12 months, and discharge. Findings indicated that the frequency, quality, and purpose of the service coordination component varied from case to case and by time in treatment. Although service coordination activities overall decreased as treatment progressed, concentrated high quality service coordination (measured by frequency, quality, and component of service coordination) consistently predicted improved functioning on both CAFAS ratings and daily points earned. Results have both practice and policy implications for training interagency teams and clinicians on when and how to optimally coordinate services. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract).

The Interactive Systems Framework (ISF) for Dissemination and Implementation presents an overall framework for translating knowledge into action. Each of its three systems requires further clarification and explanation to truly understand how to conduct this work. This article describes the development and initial application of the Rapid Synthesis and Translation Process (RSTP) using the exchange model of knowledge transfer in the context of one of the ISF systems: the Prevention Synthesis and Translation System (see [special issue "introduction" article] for a translation of the Wandersman et al. (Am J Community Psychol 41:3-4, 2008) article using the RSTP). This six-step process, which was developed by and for the Division of Violence Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in collaboration with partners, serves as an example of how a federal agency can expedite the transfer of research knowledge to practitioners to prevent violence. While the RSTP itself represents one of the possible functions in the Prevention Synthesis and Translation System, the resulting products affect both prevention support and prevention delivery as well. Examples of how practitioner and researcher feedback were incorporated into the Rapid Synthesis and Translation Process are discussed.

Translating evidence-based HIV/STD prevention interventions and research findings into applicable HIV prevention practice has become an important challenge for the fields of community psychology and public health due to evidence-based interventions and evidence-based practice being given higher priority and endorsement by federal, state, and local health department funders. The Interactive Systems Framework (ISF) for Dissemination and Implementation and the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) Research-to-Practice model both address this challenge. The DHAP model and the ISF are each presented with a brief history and an introduction of their features from synthesis of research findings through translation into intervention materials to implementation by prevention providers. This paper describes why the ISF and the DHAP model were developed and the similarities and differences between them. Specific examples of the use of the models to translate research to practice and the subsequent implications for support of each model are provided. The paper concludes that the ISF and the DHAP model are truly complementary with some unique differences, while both contribute substantially to addressing the gap between identifying effective programs and ensuring their widespread adoption in the field.

Previous research has linked greater social connectedness with a lowered risk of self-directed violence among adolescents. However, few studies have analyzed the comparative strength of different domains of connectedness (e.g., family, peers and school) to determine where limited resources might best be focused. Data to address that gap were taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Student Health and Safety Survey, administered to 4,131 7th-12th graders (51.5% female; 43.8% Hispanic; 22.6% African American or Black). Logistic regressions (controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, family structure, academic performance, and depressive symptoms) suggest that family connectedness was a stronger predictor than connectedness to peers, school, or adults at school for non-suicidal self-harm, suicidal ideation, suicide plans, and non-fatal suicidal behavior. In some analyses, peer connectedness was unexpectedly a risk factor. Results have implications for prevention of suicide in adolescence, especially in the context of the current trend towards school-based prevention programs.