Federal spending on evidence-based practices (EBPs) provides significant returns by offsetting billions of dollars in societal impacts each year. Practices are deemed evidence-based because they have demonstrated their effectiveness in addressing various social and health-related challenges. Federal agencies often invest in EBP delivery through discretionary grants, but there is limited guidance on how to optimize these grants to support large-scale EBP implementation. To address this gap, the authors held focus groups with federal and state agency officials (using the findings from ongoing RAND research to frame their discussions) to gather and synthesize their recommendations on how to optimize federal grantmaking for EBP implementation. With the focus group participants, the authors identified seven policy recommendations for federal officials to consider when designing, awarding, and executing grants for EBP implementation, including capacity-building in service delivery organizations to sustain EBPs after grant funding ends. The authors also present real-world case examples to illustrate how funding agencies have put each recommendation into practice.

In this report, the authors present seven policy recommendations to optimize federal investment into large-scale implementation of evidence-based practices in health and social services that they identified with federal and state agency officials.

Objectives: Population aging has increased the burden of chronic diseases globally. mHealth is often cited as a viable solution to enhance the management of chronic conditions. In this study, we conducted a systematic review of mHealth interventions for the self-management of chronic diseases in Korea, a highly-connected country with a high chronic care burden. Methods: Five databases were searched for relevant empirical studies that employed randomized controlled trial (RCT) or quasi-experimental methods published in English or Korean from the years 2008 to 2018. The selected studies were reviewed according to the PRISMA guidelines. The selected studies were classified using the Individual and Family Self-Management Theory conceptual framework. Results: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, 9 of which were targeted towards diabetes management, and 7 of which were RCTs. Other target diseases included hypertension, stroke, asthma, and others. mHealth interventions were primarily delivered through smartphone applications, mobile phones connected to a monitoring device, and short message services (SMS). Various self-management processes were applied, including providing social influence and support, and facilitating self-monitoring and goal setting. Eleven studies showed mHealth interventions to be effective in improving self-management behaviors, biomarkers, or patient-reported outcome measures associated with chronic diseases. Conclusions: While the number of identified studies was not large, none reported negative impacts of mHealth on selected outcomes. Future studies on mHealth should design interventions with a greater variety of targeted functions and should adopt more rigorous methodologies to strengthen the evidence for its effectiveness in chronic disease management.

BACKGROUND: Emergency coronary artery bypass grafting for unsuccessful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is now rare. We aimed to evaluate the current safety and outcomes of primary PCI and nonprimary PCI at centers with and without on-site surgical backup. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis by using mixed-effects models. We included 23 high-quality studies that compared clinical outcomes and complication rates of 1 101 123 patients after PCI at centers with or without on-site surgery. For primary PCI for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (133 574 patients), all-cause mortality (without on-site surgery versus with on-site surgery: observed rates, 4.8% versus 7.2%; pooled odds ratio [OR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.07; P=0.729; I(2)=3.4%) or emergency coronary artery bypass grafting rates (observed rates, 1.5% versus 2.4%; pooled OR, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.01; P=0.062; I(2)=42.5%) did not differ by presence of on-site surgery. For nonprimary PCI (967 549 patients), all-cause mortality (observed rates, 1.6% versus 2.1%; pooled OR, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.41; P=0.172; I(2)=67.5%) and emergency coronary artery bypass grafting rates (observed rates, 0.5% versus 0.8%; pooled OR, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.13; P=0.669; I(2)=81.7%) were not significantly different. PCI complication rates (cardiogenic shock, stroke, aortic dissection, tamponade, recurrent infarction) also did not differ by on-site surgical capability. Cumulative meta-analysis of nonprimary PCI showed a temporal decrease of the effect size (OR) for all-cause mortality after 2007. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes and complication rates of PCI at centers without on-site surgery did not differ from those with on-site surgery, for both primary and nonprimary PCI. Temporal trends indicated improving clinical outcomes in nonprimary PCI at centers without on-site surgery.

The brief summarizes seven policy recommendations to optimize federal spending on large-scale implementation of evidence-based practices in health and social services, identified through focus groups with officials, and real-world examples of each.