The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Well-Integrated Screening and Evaluation for WOMen Across the Nation (WISEWOMAN) program funded 24 recipients to provide cardiovascular disease screenings and healthy behavior support services to uninsured and underinsured women aged 40-64 years. In 2018 and throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, WISEWOMAN recipients implemented evidence-based strategies to reduce participants' risk for cardiovascular disease, including team-based care through medication therapy management (MTM) and self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) monitoring, as well as other clinical and health behavior support services. Our primary analysis assessed the implementation of MTM and SMBP and changes in implementation. To contextualize implementation, we analyzed participants' engagement in MTM and SMBP. We analyzed data from 108 semi-structured interviews with WISEWOMAN staff and partners, program survey responses from 22 of 24 funded recipients, and participant-level data from 5,541 participants. Interview respondents noted the value of MTM and SMBP, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, while also describing challenges arising from implementing strategies (e.g., integrating MTM into clinic workflows, time and resources needed for SMBP). In 2023, 71% of recipients reported referring participants to MTM, compared to 41% of recipients in 2020. The percentage of hypertensive participants who reported monitoring their blood pressure at least weekly increased from 36% at the first screening to 44% at the second screening (p < .01). Health systems seeking to implement team-based care for hypertension management and control can draw upon experiences from 24 recipients who have successfully implemented MTM and SMBP to address cardiovascular disease.

CONTEXT: Contributing to the evidence base, by disseminating findings through written products such as journal articles, is a core competency for public health practitioners. Disseminating practice-based evidence that supports improving cardiovascular health is necessary for filling literature gaps, generating health policies and laws, and translating evidence-based strategies into practice. However, a gap exists in the dissemination of practice-based evidence in public health. Public health practitioners face various dissemination barriers (eg, lack of time and resources, staff turnover) which, more recently, were compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. PROGRAM: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP) partnered with the National Network of Public Health Institutes to implement a multimodal approach to build writing capacity among recipients funded by three DHDSP cooperative agreements. This project aimed to enhance public health practitioners' capacity to translate and disseminate their evaluation findings. IMPLEMENTATION: Internal evaluation technical assistance expertise and external subject matter experts helped to implement this project and to develop tailored multimodal capacity-building activities. These activities included online peer-to-peer discussion posts, virtual writing workshops, resource documents, one-to-one writing coaching sessions, an online toolkit, and a supplemental issue in a peer-reviewed journal. EVALUATION: Findings from an informal process evaluation demonstrate positive results. Most participants were engaged and satisfied with the project's activities. Across eight workshops, participants reported increased knowledge (≥94%) and enhanced confidence in writing (≥98%). The majority of participants (83%) reported that disseminating evaluation findings improved program implementation. Notably, 30 abstracts were submitted for a journal supplement and 23 articles were submitted for consideration. DISCUSSION: This multimodal approach serves as a promising model that enhances public health practitioners' capacity to disseminate evaluation findings during times of evolving health needs.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between stroke care infrastructure and stroke quality-of-care outcomes at 29 spoke hospitals participating in the <name concealed for blinding purposes> hub-and-spoke telestroke network. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Encounter-level data from <name concealed for blinding purposes> telestroke patient registry were filtered to include encounters during 2015-2022 for patients aged 18 and above with a clinical diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke, and who received intravenous tissue plasminogen activator. Unadjusted and adjusted generalized estimating equations assessed associations between time-related stroke quality-of-care metrics captured during the encounter and the existence of the two components of stroke care infrastructure-stroke coordinators and stroke center certifications-across all hospitals and within hospital subgroups defined by size and rurality. RESULTS: Telestroke encounters at spoke hospitals with stroke coordinators and stroke center certifications were associated with shorter door-to-needle (DTN) times (60.9 min for hospitals with both components and 57.3 min for hospitals with one, vs. 81.2 min for hospitals with neither component, p <.001). Similar patterns were observed for the percentage of encounters with DTN time of ≤60 min (63.8% and 68.9% vs. 32.0%, p <.001) and ≤45 min (34.0% and 38.4% vs. 8.42%, p <.001). Associations were similar for other metrics (e.g., door-to-registration time), and were stronger for smaller (vs. larger) hospitals and rural (vs. urban) hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke coordinators or stroke center certifications may be important for stroke quality of care, especially at spoke hospitals with limited resources or in rural areas.

BACKGROUND: The use of telehealth for the management and treatment of hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD) has increased across the United States (U.S.), especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Telehealth has the potential to reduce barriers to accessing health care and improve clinical outcomes. However, implementation, outcomes, and health equity implications related to these strategies are not well understood. The purpose of this review was to identify how telehealth is being used by U.S. health care professionals and health systems to manage hypertension and CVD and to describe the impact these telehealth strategies have on hypertension and CVD outcomes, with a special focus on social determinants of health and health disparities. METHODS: This study comprised a narrative review of the literature and meta-analyses. The meta-analyses included articles with intervention and control groups to examine the impact of telehealth interventions on changes to select patient outcomes, including systolic and diastolic blood pressure. A total of 38 U.S.-based interventions were included in the narrative review, with 14 yielding data eligible for the meta-analyses. RESULTS: The telehealth interventions reviewed were used to treat patients with hypertension, heart failure, and stroke, with most interventions employing a team-based care approach. These interventions utilized the expertise of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals to collaborate on patient decisions and provide direct care. Among the 38 interventions reviewed, 26 interventions utilized remote patient monitoring (RPM) devices mostly for blood pressure monitoring. Half the interventions used a combination of strategies (e.g., videoconferencing and RPM). Patients using telehealth saw significant improvements in clinical outcomes such as blood pressure control, which were comparable to patients receiving in-person care. In contrast, the outcomes related to hospitalizations were mixed. There were also significant decreases in all-cause mortality when compared to usual care. No study explicitly focused on addressing social determinants of health or health disparities through telehealth for hypertension or CVD. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth appears to be comparable to traditional in-person care for managing blood pressure and CVD and may be seen as a complement to existing care options for some patients. Telehealth can also support team-based care delivery and may benefit patients and health care professionals by increasing opportunities for communication, engagement, and monitoring outside a clinical setting.

Telehealth is a promising intervention for hypertension management and control and was rapidly adopted by health systems to ensure continuity of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rapid evaluations of telehealth strategies at 2 US health systems explored how telehealth affected health care access and blood pressure outcomes among populations disproportionately affected by hypertension. Both health systems implemented telehealth strategies to maintain continuity of health care services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The evaluations used a mixed-method approach; qualitative interviews were conducted with key staff, and quantitative analyses were performed on patient electronic health record data. Both health systems exhibited similar trends in telehealth use, which allowed for continued access to health care for some patients but hindered other patients who had limited access to the internet or the equipment needed. Telehealth provides opportunities for blood pressure control and management. Further evaluation is needed to understand the role of broadband internet access as a social determinant of health and its impact on equitable patient access to health care.

Objectives: This study assessed the associations between parent intent to have their child receive the COVID-19 vaccination, and demographic factors and various child activities, including attendance at in-person education or childcare. Methods: Persons undergoing COVID-19 testing residing in Minnesota and Los Angeles County, California with children aged &lt;12 years completed anonymous internet-based surveys between 10 May and 6 September 2021 to assess factors associated with intention to vaccinate their child. Factors influencing the parents' decision to have their child attend in-person school or childcare were examined. Estimated adjusted odds rations (AORs, 95% CI) were computed between parents' intentions regarding children's COVID-19 vaccination and participation in school and extra-curricular activities using multinomial logistic regression. Results: Compared to parents intending to vaccinate their children (n = 4686 [77.2%]), those undecided (n = 874 [14.4%]) or without intention to vaccinate (n = 508 [8.4%]) tended to be younger, non-White, less educated, and themselves not vaccinated against COVID-19. Their children more commonly participated in sports (aOR:1.51 1.17-1.95) and in-person faith or community activities (aOR:4.71 3.62-6.11). A greater proportion of parents without intention to vaccinate (52.5%) indicated that they required no more information to make their decision in comparison to undecided parents (13.2%). They further indicated that additional information regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness would influence their decision. COVID-19 mitigation measures were the most common factors influencing parents' decision to have their child attend in-person class or childcare. Conclusions: Several demographic and socioeconomic factors are associated with parents' decision whether to vaccinate their &lt;12-year-old children for COVID-19. Child participation in in-person activities was associated with parents' intentions not to vaccinate. Tailored communications may be useful to inform parents' decisions regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccination.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a core set of capabilities and tasks for local health departments (LHDs) to engage in land use and transportation policy processes that promote active transportation. DESIGN: We conducted a 3-phase modified Delphi study from 2015 to 2017. SETTING: We recruited a multidisciplinary national expert panel for key informant interviews by telephone and completion of a 2-step online validation process. PARTICIPANTS: The panel consisted of 58 individuals with expertise in local transportation and policy processes, as well as experience in cross-sector collaboration with public health. Participants represented the disciplines of land use planning, transportation/public works, public health, municipal administration, and active transportation advocacy at the state and local levels. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Key informant interviews elicited initial capabilities and tasks. An online survey solicited rankings of impact and feasibility for capabilities and ratings of importance for associated tasks. Feasibility rankings were used to categorize capabilities according to required resources. Results were presented via second online survey for final input. RESULTS: Ten capabilities were categorized according to required resources. Fewest resources were as follows: (1) collaborate with public officials; (2) serve on land use or transportation board; and (3) review plans, policies, and projects. Moderate resources were as follows: (4) outreach to the community; (5) educate policy makers; (6) participate in plan and policy development; and (7) participate in project development and design review. Most resources were as follows: (8) participate in data and assessment activities; (9) fund dedicated staffing; and (10) provide funding support. CONCLUSIONS: These actionable capabilities can guide planning efforts for LHDs of all resource levels.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

INTRODUCTION: Transportation and land-use policies can affect the physical activity of populations. Local health departments (LHDs) are encouraged to participate in built-environment policy processes, which are outside their traditional expertise. Cross-sector collaborations are needed, yet stakeholders' perceptions of LHD involvement are not well understood. The objective of this study was to describe the perceived value of LHD participation in transportation and land-use decision making and potential contributions to these processes among stakeholders. METHODS: We analyzed qualitative data from 49 semistructured interviews in 2015. Participants were professionals in 13 US states and 4 disciplines: land-use planning (n = 13), transportation/public works (n = 11), public health (n = 19), and other (municipal administration and bike and pedestrian advocacy [n = 6]). Two analysts conducted directed content analysis. RESULTS: All respondents reported that LHDs offer valuable contributions to transportation and land-use policy processes. They identified 7 contributions (interrater agreement 91%): 1) physical activity and health perspective (n = 44), 2) data analysis and assessment (n = 41), 3) partnerships in the community and across sectors (n = 35), 4) public education (n = 27), 5) knowledge of the public health evidence base and best practices (n = 23), 6) resource support (eg, grant writing, technical assistance) (n = 20), and 7) health equity (n = 8). CONCLUSION: LHDs can leverage their strengths to foster cross-sector collaborations that promote physical activity opportunities in communities. Our results will inform development of sustainable capacity-building models for LHD involvement in built-environment decision making.