OBJECTIVE: Food insecurity is associated with eating disorder psychopathology. This Spotlight describes why food pantries could be promising partners for disseminating and implementing eating disorder interventions.
METHODS: Researchers are increasingly collaborating with community-based organizations to improve access to health interventions, because community-based organizations overcome structural barriers to traditional healthcare by being embedded physically in the communities they serve, convenient to visit, regularly frequented, and led by trusted community members.
RESULTS: We describe strategies we have identified with our partner to disseminate and implement our digital intervention for binge eating; we also discuss ways we support the pantry\'s needs to improve the mutuality of the partnership.
CONCLUSIONS: The potential benefits of partnerships with food pantries make this an area to explore further. Future research directions include deeply engaging with food pantries to determine how pantries benefit from disseminating and implementing eating disorder interventions and how to intervene in non-stigmatizing ways, what resources they need to sustainably support these efforts, what eating disorder intervention modalities guests are willing and able to engage with, what intervention adaptations are needed so individuals with food insecurity can meaningfully engage in eating disorder intervention, and what implementation strategies facilitate uptake to intervention sustainably over time.

BACKGROUND: Goals-of-care discussions (GOCD) are uncommon in persons living with dementia (PLWD) despite the likelihood of eventual loss of decisional capacity in the population. The Jumpstart Guide, an existing serious illness communication priming tool, can improve GOCD in certain populations, but has not previously been adapted for use among PLWD and their caregivers.
METHODS: Using human-centered design (HCD), we adapted the Jumpstart Guide for use with PLWD and their caregivers. We conducted qualitative interviews with clinicians and caregivers of PLWD. Six team members conducted qualitative rapid analysis of interviews leading to the development of summary templates and integrative matrices. Four iterations of the Jumpstart Guide led to the final version.
RESULTS: Thirteen clinicians and 11 caregivers were interviewed. Interviews provided key insights into the unique barriers PLWD and their caregivers face during GOCD, including discomfort with accepting a dementia diagnosis and concern with using \"serious illness\" to describe dementia, as is commonly done in palliative care. Clinicians described differences in GOCD with PLWD compared to other serious illnesses, and the challenge of getting patients and families to think about future health states. Interviews led to Jumpstart Guide adaptations in the following domains: (1) format and structure, (2) content, and (3) specific language. Suggested changes included prioritizing naming a decision-maker, changing conversation prompts to improve accessibility and understandability, ensuring the Jumpstart Guide could be used with patients as well as their caregivers, and altering language to avoid references to \"serious illness\" and \"abilities.\"
CONCLUSIONS: Using HCD yielded valuable insights from clinicians and caregivers about the unique barriers to conducting GOCD among PLWD and their caregivers. These insights were used to adapt the Jumpstart Guide for use with PLWD and their caregivers, which is currently being tested in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in outpatient clinics.

Evidence-informed health care decisions and recommendations need to be made systematically and transparently. Mediating technology can help manage boundaries between groups making decisions and target audiences, enhancing salience, credibility, and legitimacy for all. This article describes the development of the Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework and an interactive tool to create and use frameworks (iEtD) to support communication in decision making. Methods: Using a human-centered design approach, we created prototypes employing a broad range of methods to iteratively develop EtD framework content and iEtD tool functionality. Results: We developed tailored EtD frameworks for making evidence-informed decisions and recommendations about clinical practice interventions, diagnostic and screening tests, coverage, and health system and public health options. The iEtD tool provides functionality for preparing frameworks, using them in group discussions, and publishing output for implementation or adaption. EtD and iEtD are intuitive and useful for producers and users of frameworks, and flexible for use across different types of topics, decisions, and organizations. They bring valued structure to panel discussions and transparency to published output. Conclusion: EtD and iEtD can resolve some of the challenges inherent in multicriteria, multistakeholder decision systems. They are freely available online for all to use at https://ietd.epistemonikos.org/ and https://gradepro.org.