scholarly journals Adoption of an Evidence-Based Intervention for Mammography Screening Adherence in Safety Net Clinics

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Holcomb ◽  
Gayla Ferguson ◽  
Isabel Roth ◽  
Gretchen Walton ◽  
Linda Highfield
Keyword(s):  
Scale Up ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Community Partner ◽  
Federally Qualified Health Centers ◽  
Safety Net Clinics

Through an academic-community partnership, an evidence-based intervention to reduce mammography appointment no-show rates in underserved women was expanded to safety net clinics. The partnership implemented four strategies to improve the adoption and scale-up of evidence-based interventions with Federally Qualified Health Centers and charity care clinics: (1) an outreach email blast targeting the community partner member clinics to increase program awareness, (2) an adoption video encouraging enrollment in the program, (3) an outreach webinar educating the community partner member clinics about the program, encouraging enrollment and outlining adoption steps, and (4) an adoption survey adapted from Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research constructs from the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network for cancer control interventions with Federally Qualified Health Centers. The development of academic-community partnerships can lead to successful adoption of evidence-based interventions particularly in safety net clinics.

scholarly journals Experiences and Perspectives on Adopting New Practices for Social Needs-targeted Care in Safety-net Settings: A Qualitative Case Series Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 215013272110177
Author(s):  
Eileen Nehme ◽  
Sierra Castedo de Martell ◽  
Hannah Matthews ◽  
David Lakey
Keyword(s):  
Safety Net ◽  
Community Action ◽  
Social Needs ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
System Level ◽  
Community Partner ◽  
Community Resource ◽  
Case Series Study ◽  
Outer Setting ◽  
Safety Net Clinics

Introduction Clinical settings are being encouraged to identify and address patients’ social needs within the clinic or through partner organizations. The purpose of this qualitative study was to describe the current practice of social needs-targeted care in 3 Texas safety net clinics, and facilitators and barriers to adopting new social needs-targeted care tools and practices. Methods Interviews were conducted with staff at 3 safety net clinics serving small and mid-sized communities. Analysis focused on perspectives and decisions around adopting new tools or practices related to social needs-targeted care, including standardized screening tools and community resource referral platforms. Results Nine staff across 3 organizations were interviewed. Two organizations were currently using a standard social needs screening tool in their routine practice, and a third was considering doing so. One organization had adopted a community resource referral platform in partnership with a large community collaboration. Three case studies illustrate a range of facilitators, barriers, perceived benefits, and drawbacks influencing social needs-targeted practices. Benefits of systematic data collection on social needs included the generation of data for community action. Drawbacks include concerns about data privacy. Community resource referral platforms were seen as valuable for creating accountability, but required an influential community partner and adequate community resources. Concerns about disempowering clients and blurring roles were voiced, and potential to increase provider job satisfaction was identified. Conclusions Benefits and drawbacks of adopting new tools and practices related to social needs-targeted care are strongly influenced by the community context. For the adoption of community resource referral platforms, the outer setting is particularly relevant; adoption readiness is best assessed at the community or regional level rather than the clinic system level. While screening tools are much easier than referral platforms for clinics to adopt, the ability to address identified needs remains heavily based on the outer setting.

scholarly journals An FQHC Research Network in Oral Health: Enhancing the Workforce and Reducing Disparities

2007 ◽  
Vol 122 (5) ◽  
pp. 592-601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine A. Riedy ◽  
Kiet A. Ly ◽  
Vickie Ybarra ◽  
Peter Milgrom
Keyword(s):  
Health Disparities ◽  
Oral Health ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Dental Staff ◽  
Practice Based Research ◽  
Improve Health Care Delivery

Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) contribute greatly to reducing health disparities by providing care to underserved communities. Yet these safety-net clinics face chronic manpower shortages and turnover. Practice-Based Research Networks aid in translating medical science from bench to clinical practice. These networks have been used to understand and improve health-care delivery and reduce disparities. Initiatives to strengthen lagging translational research in dentistry have begun, but there is no FQHC research network that addresses oral health. This article reviews the potential for, and outlines a model of, an Oral Health FQHC Research Network. It characterizes the needs for an FQHC research network, describes a successful FQHC research-oriented program, and outlines an Oral Health FQHC Research Network conceptual model. It argues that strengthening FQHCs through involvement of their dental staff in clinical research may enhance their jobs, draw staff closer to the community, and strengthen their ability to reduce health disparities.

Implementation Strategies

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Byron J. Powell ◽  
Krystal G. Garcia ◽  
Maria E. Fernandez
Keyword(s):  
Scale Up ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Routine Care ◽  
The State ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Implementation Barriers ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Effective Strategies

Implementation strategies are methods or techniques that can be used to enhance the adoption, implementation, scale-up, and sustainment of evidence-based cancer control practices into routine care. This chapter defines implementation strategies, presents several taxonomies of implementation strategies that can be used to address multilevel implementation barriers, describes guidelines for reporting and specifying implementation strategies to ensure the efficient generation of knowledge and the replication of effective strategies in research and practice, briefly overviews the state of evidence for strategies, and suggests ways in which they can be carefully developed and applied to address the needs of specific contexts. The chapter concludes by presenting several research priorities related to implementation strategies.

scholarly journals Assessing Levels and Correlates of Implementation of Evidence-Based Approaches for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Cross-Sectional Study With Federally Qualified Health Centers

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 1008-1015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy J. Walker ◽  
Betsy Risendal ◽  
Michelle C. Kegler ◽  
Daniela B. Friedman ◽  
Bryan J. Weiner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Medical Record ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Federally Qualified Health Centers ◽  
Record System ◽  
Cross Sectional

Multiple evidence-based approaches (EBAs) exist to improve colorectal cancer screening in health clinics. The success of these approaches is tied to effective implementation. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the implementation of EBAs for colorectal cancer screening and clinic-level correlates of implementation in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). We conducted descriptive and cross-sectional analyses using data collected from FQHC clinics across seven states ( n = 51). A clinic representative completed electronic surveys about clinic characteristics (e.g., size, patient characteristics, and medical record system characteristics) and the implementation of Community Guide recommended EBAs (e.g., client reminders, small media, and provider assessment and feedback). We used bivariate Spearman correlations to assess clinic-level correlates with implementation outcomes. Most clinics were planning to implement, in the early implementation stages, or inconsistently implementing EBAs. No EBA was fully implemented by more than nine (17.6%) clinics. Clinic size variables were inversely related to implementation levels of one-on-one education; medical record variables were directly related to implementation levels of client and provider reminders as well as provider assessment and feedback; and rapid and timely feedback from clinic leaders was directly associated with implementation levels of four out of six EBAs. Given the varying levels of implementation, clinics need to assess current use of implementation strategies and improve effective program delivery to increase colorectal cancer screening among their patients. In addition, clinics should also consider how their characteristics may support or serve as a barrier to implementation in their respective settings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document