Implementation Science in Pediatric Rheumatology: A Path to Health Equity

2022 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 331-342
Author(s):  
Emily A. Smitherman ◽  
Ingrid Goh ◽  
Rajdeep Pooni ◽  
Sheetal S. Vora ◽  
Cagri Yildirim-Toruner ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 263348952110494
Author(s):  
Rachel C. Shelton ◽  
Prajakta Adsul ◽  
April Oh ◽  
Nathalie Moise ◽  
Derek M. Griffith

Background Despite the promise of implementation science (IS) to reduce health inequities, critical gaps and opportunities remain in the field to promote health equity. Prioritizing racial equity and antiracism approaches is critical in these efforts, so that IS does not inadvertently exacerbate disparities based on the selection of frameworks, methods, interventions, and strategies that do not reflect consideration of structural racism and its impacts. Methods Grounded in extant research on structural racism and antiracism, we discuss the importance of advancing understanding of how structural racism as a system shapes racial health inequities and inequitable implementation of evidence-based interventions among racially and ethnically diverse communities. We outline recommendations for explicitly applying an antiracism lens to address structural racism and its manifests through IS. An anti-racism lens provides a framework to guide efforts to confront, address, and eradicate racism and racial privilege by helping people identify racism as a root cause of health inequities and critically examine how it is embedded in policies, structures, and systems that differentially affect racially and ethnically diverse populations. Results We provide guidance for the application of an antiracism lens in the field of IS, focusing on select core elements in implementation research, including: (1) stakeholder engagement; (2) conceptual frameworks and models; (3) development, selection, adaptation of EBIs; (4) evaluation approaches; and (5) implementation strategies. We highlight the need for foundational grounding in antiracism frameworks among implementation scientists to facilitate ongoing self-reflection, accountability, and attention to racial equity, and provide questions to guide such reflection and consideration. Conclusion We conclude with a reflection on how this is a critical time for IS to prioritize focus on justice, racial equity, and real-world equitable impact. Moving IS towards making consideration of health equity and an antiracism lens foundational is central to strengthening the field and enhancing its impact. Plain language abstract There are important gaps and opportunities that exist in promoting health equity through implementation science. Historically, the commonly used frameworks, measures, interventions, strategies, and approaches in the field have not been explicitly focused on equity, nor do they consider the role of structural racism in shaping health and inequitable delivery of evidence-based practices/programs. This work seeks to build off of the long history of research on structural racism and health, and seeks to provide guidance on how to apply an antiracism lens to select core elements of implementation research. We highlight important opportunities for the field to reflect and consider applying an antiracism approach in: 1) stakeholder/community engagement; 2) use of conceptual frameworks; 3) development, selection and adaptation of evidence-based interventions; 4) evaluation approaches; 5) implementation strategies (e.g., how to deliver evidence-based practices, programs, policies); and 6) how researchers conduct their research, with a focus on racial equity. This is an important time for the field of implementation science to prioritize a foundational focus on justice, equity, and real-world impact through the application of an anti-racism lens in their work.


Medical Care ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. S16-S23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Chinman ◽  
Eva N. Woodward ◽  
Geoffrey M. Curran ◽  
Leslie R.M. Hausmann

2021 ◽  
pp. 101620
Author(s):  
Chelsey R. Schlechter ◽  
Guilherme Del Fiol ◽  
Cho Y. Lam ◽  
Maria E. Fernandez ◽  
Tom Greene ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Elle Saine ◽  
III Vincent Lo Re ◽  
Frances K. Barg ◽  
Julia E. Szymczak

Abstract Background: Disease-related stigma is an important, but under recognized barrier to the implementation of evidence-based therapies. Existing implementation science frameworks do not adequately specify the mechanisms by which the outer societal context produces disparate implementation outcomes. Our aim in this study was to evaluate how stigma influences the implementation of evidence-based hepatitis C virus (HCV) care and, in so doing, make the case for incorporating stigma into the Health Equity Implementation Framework.Methods: From 2015-2019, we conducted a concurrent explanatory mixed-methods study among people living with HCV in Philadelphia. We administered the validated 33-item HCV-stigma scale. Semi-structured interviews were conducted among a purposive subsample of survey respondents. Summative HCV-stigma scale scores and descriptive statistics were calculated. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed for common themes. Survey responses were linked to interview data.Results: Surveys were completed by 265 participants; 22 interviews were conducted with a subset of these respondents. Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity was associated with significantly higher HCV-stigma scale scores (adjusted mean, 81.39 [95% CI, 76.44-86.33] versus 74.28 [95% CI, 70.51-78.05]; P=0.025). In interviews, participants described the impact of stigma on their engagement with HCV care. Stigma associated with their diagnosis contributed to feelings of dirtiness and shame. Participants described the critical importance of interactions with medical providers and the healthcare system as a whole to either facilitating or mitigating the negative impact of enacted stigma on their trust in medicine and willingness to engage with HCV care. Interactions with family and friends, especially surrounding disclosure of one's diagnosis, were an important mediator of the experience of stigma. Hispanic/Latinx participants described greater feelings of isolation and stigma from family and friends as a result of their diagnosis. Finally, participants described the way stigma shaped their and society's perceptions of HCV therapies, including the media portrayal of pharmaceuticals, the high cost of drugs and insurer denials of treatment.Conclusions: Experiences of HCV-related stigma influence engagement with HCV care at multiple levels: patient, provider, family and community, and perceptions of the therapy itself. Incorporating stigma into the Health Equity Implementation Framework can improve the utility of the framework by specifying a mechanism by which the social context influences the uptake of evidence-based innovations.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 83-92
Author(s):  
Moira McNulty ◽  
J.D. Smith ◽  
Juan Villamar ◽  
Inger Burnett-Zeigler ◽  
Wouter Vermeer ◽  
...  

Implementation science has great potential to improve the health of communities and individuals who are not achieving health equity. However, implementation science can exacerbate health disparities if its use is biased toward entities that already have the highest capacities for delivering evidence-based interventions. In this article, we ex­amine several methodologic approaches for conducting implementation research to ad­vance equity both in our understanding of what historically disadvantaged populations would need—what we call scientific equi­ty—and how this  knowledge can be applied to produce health equity. We focus on rapid ways to gain knowledge on how to engage, design research, act, share, and sustain successes in partnership with communities. We begin by describing a principle-driven partnership process between community members and implementation researchers to overcome disparities. We then review three innovative implementation method paradigms to improve scientific and health equity and provide examples of each. The first paradigm involves making efficient use of existing data by applying epidemiologic and simulation modeling to understand what drives disparities and how they can be overcome. The second paradigm involves designing new research studies that include, but do not focus exclusively on, popula­tions experiencing disparities in health domains such as cardiovascular disease and co-occurring mental health conditions. The third paradigm involves implementation research that focuses exclusively on popula­tions who have experienced high levels of disparities. To date, our scientific enterprise has invested disproportionately in research that fails to eliminate health disparities. The implementation research methods discussed here hold promise for overcoming barri­ers and achieving health equity.Ethn Dis. 2019;29(Suppl 1):83-92; doi:10.18865/ ed.29.S1.83.


Author(s):  
Claire Snell-Rood ◽  
Elise Trott Jaramillo ◽  
Alison B Hamilton ◽  
Sarah E Raskin ◽  
Francesca M Nicosia ◽  
...  

AbstractWhile implementation science is driven by theory, most implementation science theories, models, and frameworks (TMF) do not address issues of power, inequality, and reflexivity that are pivotal to achieving health equity. Theories used in anthropology address these issues effectively and could complement prevailing implementation science theories and constructs. We propose three broad areas of theory that complement and extend existing TMF in implementation science to advance health equity. First, theories of postcoloniality and reflexivity foreground attention to the role of power in knowledge production and to the ways that researchers and interventionists may perpetuate the inequalities shaping health. Second, theories of structural violence and intersectionality can help us to better understand the unequal burden of health disparities in the population, thereby encouraging researchers to think beyond single interventions to initiate partnerships that can impact overlapping health vulnerabilities and influence the upstream causes of vulnerability. Finally, theories of policy and governance encourage us to examine the social-political forces of the “outer context” crucial for implementation and sustainability. The incorporation of critical theories could enhance implementation science and foster necessary reflexivity among implementation scientists. We contend that a theoretically critical implementation science will promote better science and, more importantly, support progress toward health equity.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 77-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheryl Anne Boyce ◽  
Whitney Barfield ◽  
Jennifer Curry ◽  
Susan Shero ◽  
Mellissa Green Parker ◽  
...  

Rapid advancements in translational research have produced innovative clinical discoveries and evidence-based interven­tions that are ready for uptake in real-world settings, creating vast opportunities and challenges for implementation science. However, there is an inadequate research workforce to study effective strategies and delivery of implementation to advance the field. Novel career development initiatives will build scholars for the next genera­tion of implementation science to bridge research to practice for diverse populations to advance health equity, specifically with a strategic focus on heart, lung, blood and sleep diseases and conditions. Along with traditional mentoring and curricula, research training includes state-of-the-art approaches using complex methods and multi-disci­plinary collaborations between researchers, practice settings, and diverse communities. Implementation science scholars strive not only to decrease the lag time between the discovery of evidence-based interven­tions and successful implementation but also how to advance health equity and to reduce disparities for underserved popula­tions that suffer disproportionally.Ethn Dis. 2019;29(Suppl 1):77-82; doi:10.18865/ed.29.S1.77.


Author(s):  
Madeline R. Sterling ◽  
Sandra E. Echeverría ◽  
Yvonne Commodore-Mensah ◽  
Jessica Y. Breland ◽  
Marcella Nunez-Smith

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva N Woodward ◽  
Rajinder Sonia Singh ◽  
Phiwinhlanhla Ndebele-Ngwenya ◽  
Andrea Melgar Castillo ◽  
Kelsey S. Dickson ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Due to limited systematic integration of health equity and implementation science, it is imperative to provide researchers and practitioners tools to guide implementation in settings where there is inequitable implementation of an intervention. Our prior work documented and piloted the first published adaptation of an existing implementation science framework with health equity determinants to create the Health Equity Implementation Framework. We suggested how others’ might adapt their preferred implementation science frameworks with three health equity domains: 1) cultural factors of recipients, 2) clinical encounter, or patient-provider interaction, and 3) societal influences (including but not limited to social determinants of health). This manuscript is a practical guide to utilize three health equity domains in implementation research and practice.Methods: We describe in greater depth than in our previous publication domains typical in implementation determinants frameworks and three adaptations: domains known to affect health equity. For each domain, we compiled definitions with supporting literature, defined relevant subdomains, showcased an illustrative example, and suggested sample measures, both quantitative and qualitative.Results: We describe how to incorporate the three health equity domains in one’s preferred implementation science framework, or how to use the Health Equity Implementation Framework specifically. Practical guidelines follow ten published recommendations on how to use frameworks in implementation research and practice. We describe a new case study in which the framework guided evaluation.Conclusions: Incorporating health equity domains within implementation frameworks may optimize the scientific yield and equity of implementation efforts by assessing and ideally, addressing, implementation and equity barriers simultaneously. The practical guidance and tools provided can assist implementation scientists and practitioners to concretely address inequity in implementation across populations to capture and analyze information used to assess health outcomes.Contributions to the LiteratureSpecific definitions of implementation and three health equity domains with examples of how they have been applied in published literature and sample measures.Practical tools, including a qualitative interview guide and codebookCase study of how the Health Equity Implementation Framework guided analysis in an implementation study


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document