In the USA, structural racism contributes to higher rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) including hypertension, heart disease, and stroke among African American persons. Evidence-based interventions (EBIs), which include programs, policies, and practices, can help mitigate health inequities, but have historically been underutilized or misapplied among communities experiencing discrimination and exclusion. This commentary on the special issue of Prevention Science, "Advancing the Adaptability of Chronic Disease Prevention and Management Through Implementation Science," describes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention's (DHDSP's) efforts to support implementation practice and highlights several studies in the issue that align with DHDSP's methods and mission. This work includes EBI identification, scale, and spread as well as health services and policy research. We conclude that implementation practice to enhance CVD health equity will require greater coordination with diverse implementation science partners as well as continued innovation and capacity building to ensure meaningful community engagement throughout EBI development, translation, dissemination, and implementation.

CONTEXT: Stroke systems of care (SSOC) promote access to stroke prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation and ensure patients receive evidence-based treatment. Stroke patients living in rural areas have disproportionately less access to emergency medical services (EMS). In the United States, rural counties have a 30% higher stroke mortality rate compared to urban counties. Many states have SSOC laws supported by evidence; however, there are knowledge gaps in how states implement these state laws to strengthen SSOC. OBJECTIVE: This study identifies strategies and potential challenges to implementing state policy interventions that require or encourage evidence-supported pre-hospital interventions for stroke pre-notification, triage and transport, and inter-facility transfer of patients to the most appropriate stroke facility. DESIGN: Researchers interviewed representatives engaged in implementing SSOC across six states. Informants (n = 34) included state public health agency staff and other public health and clinical practitioners. OUTCOMES: This study examined implementation of pre-hospital SSOCs policies in terms of (1) development roles, processes, facilitators, and barriers; (2) implementation partners, challenges, and solutions; (3) EMS system structure, protocols, communication, and supervision; and (4) program improvement, outcomes, and sustainability. RESULTS: Challenges included unequal resource allocation and EMS and hospital services coverage, particularly in rural settings, lack of stroke registry usage, insufficient technologies, inconsistent use of standardized tools and protocols, collaboration gaps across SSOC, and lack of EMS stroke training. Strategies included addressing scarce resources, services, and facilities; disseminating, training on, and implementing standardized statewide SSOC protocols and tools; and utilizing SSOC quality and performance improvement systems and approaches. CONCLUSIONS: This paper identifies several strategies that can be incorporated to enhance the implementation of evidence-based stroke policies to improve access to timely stroke care for all patient populations, particularly those experiencing disparities in rural communities.

Since 2003, 38 US states and Washington, DC have adopted legislation and/or regulations to strengthen stroke systems of care (SSOCs). This study estimated the impact of SSOC laws on stroke outcomes. We used a coded legal dataset of 50 states and DC SSOC laws (years 2003-2018), national stroke accreditation information (years 1997-2018), data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (years 2012-2018), and National Vital Statistics System (years 1979-2019). We applied a natural experimental design paired with longitudinal modeling to estimate the impact of having one or more SSOC policies in effect on outcomes. On average, states with one or more SSOC policies in effect achieved better access to primary stroke centers (PSCs) than expected without SSOC policies (ranging from 2.7 to 8.0 percentage points (PP) higher), lower inpatient hospital costs (USD 610-1724 less per hospital stay), lower age-adjusted stroke mortality (1.0-1.6 fewer annual deaths per 100,000), a higher proportion of stroke patients with brain imaging results within 45 min of emergency department arrival (3.6-5.0 PP higher), and, in some states, lower in-hospital stroke mortality (5 fewer deaths per 1000). Findings were mixed for some outcomes and there was limited evidence of model fit for others. No effect was observed in racial and/or rural disparities in stroke mortality.

INTRODUCTION: Self-measured blood pressure monitoring with support is an evidence-based intervention that helps patients control their blood pressure. This systematic economic review describes how certain intervention aspects contribute to effectiveness, intervention cost, and intervention cost per unit of the effectiveness of self-measured blood pressure monitoring with support. METHODS: Papers published between data inception and March 2021 were identified from a database search and manual searches. Papers were included if they focused on self-measured blood pressure monitoring with support and reported blood pressure change and intervention cost. Papers focused on preeclampsia, kidney disease, or drug efficacy were excluded. Quality of estimates was assessed for effectiveness, cost, and cost per unit of effectiveness. Patient characteristics and intervention features were analyzed in 2021 to determine how they impacted effectiveness, intervention cost, and intervention cost per unit of effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies were included in this review from papers identified in the search. Type of support was not associated with differences in cost and cost per unit of effectiveness. Lower cost and cost per unit of effectiveness were achieved with simple technologies such as interactive phone systems, smartphones, and websites and where providers interacted with patients only as needed. DISCUSSION: Some of the included studies provided only limited information on key outcomes of interest to this review. However, the strength of this review is the systematic collection and synthesis of evidence that revealed the associations between the characteristics of implemented interventions and their patients and the interventions' effectiveness and cost, a useful contribution to the fields of both research and implementation.