We conducted a mixed methods pilot feasibility study of a Stakeholder and Equity Data-Driven Implementation (SEDDI) process to facilitate using healthcare data to identify patient groups experiencing gaps in the use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and rapidly adapt EBIs to achieve greater access and equitable outcomes. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of SEDDI in a pilot hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial of a paired colorectal cancer (CRC) and social needs screening intervention at four federally qualified community health centers (CHCs). An external facilitator partnered with CHC teams to support initial implementation, followed by the SEDDI phase focused on advancing health equity. Facilitation sessions were delivered over 8 months. Preliminary evaluation of SEDDI involved convergent mixed methods with quantitative survey and focus group data. CHCs used data to identify gaps in outreach and completion of CRC screening with respect to race/ethnicity, gender, age, and language. Adaptations to improve access and use of the intervention included cultural, linguistic, and health literacy tailoring. CHC teams reported that facilitation and systematic review of data were helpful in identifying and prioritizing gaps. None of the four CHCs completed rapid cycle testing of adaptations largely due to competing priorities during the COVID-19 response. SEDDI has the potential for advancing chronic disease prevention and management by providing a stakeholder and data-driven approach to identify and prioritize health equity targets and guide adaptations to improve health equity.
Citation: Aschbrenner KA, Kruse G, Emmons K, Singh D, Barber-Dubois ME, Miller A, Thomas A, Bartels S. Stakeholder and Equity Data-Driven Implementation: a Mixed Methods Pilot Feasibility Study. Prevention Science. 2022. Published 2022 Oct 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-022-01442-9
View the research summary here.
Health equity-focused implementation research requires using definitions and approaches that are relevant and meaningful to implementation partners. Toward this goal, our research team asked leadership and staff at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) to share how they defined and addressed health equity at their practice settings. FQHC participants defined health equity as the essential mission of FQHCs as safety net organizations delivering care to medically underserved populations. In addition, key informants identified barriers (e.g. financing models) and facilitators (e.g. interpreter services) to advancing health equity at FQHCs. We presented these findings to a larger group of FQHC stakeholders who recommended that future implementation research and practice consider how FQHCs are challenged to address the root causes of healthcare inequities with limited resources. They also highlighted the importance of meaningful collaboration among researchers, FQHCs, and communities for data collection, data interpretation, data use, and data ownership to advance health equity. Conducting research to understand the perspectives and experiences of FQHC partners can provide clear, context-specific direction for actions to improve health equity and can inform future approaches to health equity-focused implementation research that is meaningful to FQHC partners and the communities they serve.
Citation: Aschbrenner KA, Cruz J., Kruse G, Nguyen H, Huebner Torres C, Celli M, Sarcione C, Singh D, Emmons KM. Leveraging an implementation science partnership network to understand how Federally Qualified Health Centers operationalize and address health equity. Translational Behavioral Medicine. Published August 5, 2023. doi:10.1093/tbm/ibad046
View the research summary here.
Background: A Health Equity Task Force (HETF) of members from seven Centers funded by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Implementation Science in Cancer Control Centers (ISC3) network sought to identify case examples of how Centers were applying a focus on health equity in implementation science to inform future research and capacity-building efforts.
Methods: HETF members at each ISC3 collected information on how health equity was conceptualized, operationalized, and addressed in initial research and capacity-building efforts across the seven ISC3 Centers funded in 2019–2020. Each Center completed a questionnaire assessing five health equity domains central to implementation science (e.g., community engagement; implementation science theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs); and engaging underrepresented scholars). Data generated illustrative examples from these five domains.
Conclusions: Examples of approaches to integrating health equity across the ISC3 network can inform other investigators and centers’ efforts to build capacity and infrastructure to support growth and expansion of health equity-focused implementation science.
Citation: Aschbrenner KA, Oh AY, Tabak RG, Hannon PA, Angier HE, Likumahuwa-Ackman S, Caroll JK, Baumann AA, Beidas RS, Mazzucca-Ragan S, Waters EA, Sadasivam RS, Shelton RC. Integrating a Focus on Health Equity in Implementation Science: Case Examples from the National Cancer Institute’s Implementation Science in Cancer Control Centers (ISC3) Network. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science. 2023;7(1). doi:10.1017/cts.2023.638
Background: Pilot feasibility studies serve a uniquely important role in preparing for larger scale intervention trials by examining the feasibility and acceptability of interventions and the methods used to test them. Mixed methods (collecting, analyzing, and integrating quantitative and qualitative data and results) can optimize what can be learned from pilot feasibility studies to prepare rigorous intervention trials. Despite increasing use of mixed method designs in intervention trials, there is limited guidance on how to apply these approaches to address pilot feasibility study goals. The purpose of this article is to offer methodological guidance for how investigators can plan to integrate quantitative and qualitative methods within pilot feasibility studies to comprehensively address key research questions.
Methods: We used an informal consensus-based process informed by key methodological resources and our team’s complementary expertise as intervention researchers and mixed methodologists to develop guidance for applying mixed methods to optimize what can be learned from pilot feasibility studies. We developed this methodological guidance as faculty in the Mixed Methods Research Training Program (MMRTP) for the Health Sciences (R25MH104660) funded by the National Institutes of Health through the Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research.
Results: We provide the following guidance for applying mixed methods to optimize pilot feasibility studies: (1) identify feasibility domain(s) that will be examined using mixed methods, (2) align quantitative and qualitative data sources for the domain(s) selected for mixing methods, (3) determine the timing of the quantitative and qualitative data collection within the flow of the pilot study, (4) plan integrative analyses using joint displays to understand feasibility, and (5) prepare to draw meta-inferences about feasibility and implications for the future trial from the integrated data.
Conclusions: By effectively integrating quantitative and qualitative data within pilot feasibility studies, investigators can harness the potential of mixed methods for developing comprehensive and nuanced understandings about feasibility. Our guidance can help researchers to consider the range of key decisions needed during intervention pilot feasibility testing to achieve a rigorous mixed methods approach generating enhanced insights to inform future intervention trials.
Citation: Aschbrenner KA, Kruse G, Gallo J, Plano-Clark V. Applying mixed methods to pilot feasibility studies to inform intervention trials. Pilot and Feasibility Studies. 2022; 8:217. Published 2022 Sep 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-022-01178-x
Background: Adaptations to evidence-based practices (EBPs) are common but can impact implementation and patient outcomes. In our prior research, providers in routine care made a fidelity-inconsistent adaptation to an EBP that improved health outcomes in people with serious mental illness (SMI). The purpose of this study was to characterize the process and reasons for the adaptation using a framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to EBPs, with a focus on equity.
Methods: This study used qualitative data collected during a national implementation of the InSHAPE EBP addressing obesity in persons with SMI. We reviewed transcripts from five behavioral health organizations that made a successful fidelity-inconsistent adaptation to a core component of InSHAPE that was associated with cardiovascular risk reduction. We coded the data using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded (FRAME) with an emphasis on exploring whether the adaptation addressed inequities in using the EBP related to social determinants of health.
Results: Across the five agencies, the fidelity-inconsistent adaptation was characterized as unplanned and reactive in response to challenges InSHAPE teams experienced delivering the intervention in community fitness facilities as intended. In all cases, the goal of the adaptation was to improve intervention access, feasibility, and fit. Social and economic disadvantage were noted obstacles to accessing fitness facilities or gyms among participants with SMI, which led agencies to adapt the program by offering sessions at the mental health center.
Conclusion: Findings from this study show the advantages of applying a health equity lens to evaluate how obstacles such as poverty and discrimination influence EBP adaptations. Recommendations can also assist researchers and community partners in making proactive decisions about allowable adaptations to EBPs.
Citation: Aschbrenner KA, Mueller NM, Banerjee S, Bartels SJ. Applying an equity lens to characterizing the process and reasons for an adaptation to an evidenced-based practice. Implementation Research and Practice. 2021; 2. Published 2021 May 6. https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895211017252
Background: Policy implementation science (IS) is complex, dynamic, and fraught with unique study challenges that set it apart from biomedical or clinical research. One important consideration is the ways in which policy interacts with local contexts, such as power and social disadvantage (e.g., based on ability, race, class, sexual identity, geography). The complex nature of policy IS and the need for more intentional integration of equity principles into study approaches calls for creative adaptations to existing implementation science knowledge and guidance. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid studies were developed to enhance translation of clinical research by addressing research questions around the effectiveness of an intervention and its implementation in the same study. The original work on hybrid designs mainly focused on clinical experimental trials; however, over the last decade, researchers have applied it to a wide range of initiatives and contexts, including more widespread application in community-based studies. This perspectives article demonstrates how effectiveness-implementation hybrid studies can be adapted for and applied to equity-centered policy IS research. We draw upon principles of targeted universalism and Equity in Implementation Research frameworks to guide adaptations to hybrid study typologies, and suggest research and engagement activities to enhance equity considerations; for example, in the design and testing of implementing strategies. We also provide examples of equity-centered policy IS studies. As the field of policy IS rapidly evolves, these adapted hybrid type studies are offered to researchers as a starting guide.
Citation: Asada Y, Kroll-Desrosiers A, Chriqui JF, Curran GM, Emmons KM, Haire-Joshu D, Brownson RC. Applying hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies in equity-centered policy implementation science. Frontiers in Health Services. 2023;3. doi:10.3389/frhs.2023.1220629
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States and disproportionately impacts Black individuals. Here, we describe the mixed-methods approach used to develop a tailored message guidebook to promote CRC screening among Black individuals in the setting of recently updated screening guidelines.
Methods: This mixed-methods study included 10 in-depth qualitative interviews and 490 surveys in a nationally representative sample of unscreened Black individuals age ≥ 45. Messages were developed based on American Cancer Society (ACS) and National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable (NCCRT) research findings, tested among Black individuals using MaxDiff analytic methods, and reviewed by a multi-sector expert advisory committee of NCCRT members.
Conclusions: We identified age-specific barriers to CRC screening and tailored messaging to motivate participation among unscreened Black people age ≥ 45. Findings informed the development of the NCCRT and ACS guidebook for organizations and institutions aiming to increase CRC screening participation in Black individuals.
Citation: Anyane-Yeboa A, Aubertine M, Parker A, Sylvester K, Levell C, Bell E, Emmons KM, May FP. Use of a mixed‐methods approach to develop a guidebook with messaging to encourage colorectal cancer screening among Black individuals 45 and older. Cancer Medicine. 2023;12(18):19047-19056. doi:10.1002/cam4.6461
Summary: The incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is rising in racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States, and socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic disparities in IBD are increasingly being identified. In addition, there has been great appreciation for the social determinants of health as contributors to these disparities, and that upstream social determinants of health propagate downstream poor health outcomes in IBD. We propose strategies to achieve health equity in IBD that target the medical trainee, provider, practice, community, industry, and policy levels.
Citation: Anyane-Yeboa A, Quezada S, Rubin DT, Balzora S. The Impact of the Social Determinants of Health on Disparities in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022; 20:11. Published 2022 Mar 17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2022.03.011
Background and Aims: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease are inflammatory diseases of the gastrointestinal tract. The incidence of IBD is increasing in minority populations; however, little is known about the epidemiology and disease characteristics of IBD in Black women.
Methods: Our study population included participants in the Black Women’s Health Study. Diagnosis of IBD was self-reported through the biennial questionnaires starting at baseline in 1995. We estimated the incidence of IBD according to age and geographic region. A follow up supplementary questionnaire was also sent to a subset of participants who reported diagnosis of IBD to evaluate the accuracy of self-reported diagnosis and to assess disease characteristics.
Results: Through December 31st 2021, a total of 609 cases of IBD were reported, of which 142 were prevalent at baseline (prevalence = 0.24%) and 467 were incident (crude incidence rate = 33.2/100, 000 person-years). The incidence of IBD was highest in the <30 years age group and similar across geographic region. Among the participants who responded to the supplementary questionnaire, 62.1% had confirmed diagnosis of IBD.
Conclusions: In a large prospective cohort of US Black women, we found that the incidence of IBD was similar to previously published estimates in US White women. Future studies should focus on identifying risk factors for IBD in Black individuals in the US.
Citation: Anyane-Yeboa A, Buadu MAE, Khalili H, Cozier Y. Epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease in a cohort of US Black women. medRxiv. 2022; 14.22277547. Published 2022 Jul 17. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.07.14.22277547
Background: The past decade of research has seen theoretical and methodological advances in both implementation science and health equity research, opening a window of opportunity for facilitating and accelerating cross-disciplinary exchanges across these fields that have largely operated in siloes. In 2019 and 2020, the National Cancer Institute’s Consortium for Cancer Implementation Science convened an action group focused on ‘health equity and context’ to identify opportunities to advance implementation science. In this paper, we present a narrative review and synthesis of the relevant literature at the intersection of health equity and implementation science, highlight identified opportunities (i.e., public goods) by the action group for advancing implementation science in cancer prevention and control, and integrate the two by providing key recommendations for future directions.
Discussion: In the review and synthesis of the literature, we highlight recent advances in implementation science, relevant to promoting health equity (e.g., theories/models/frameworks, adaptations, implementation strategies, study designs, implementation determinants, and outcomes). We acknowledge the contributions from the broader field of health equity research and discuss opportunities for integration and synergy with implementation science, which include (1) articulating an explicit focus on health equity for conducting and reviewing implementation science; (2) promoting an explicit focus on health equity in the theories, models, and frameworks guiding implementation science; and (3) identifying methods for understanding and documenting influences on the context of implementation that incorporate a focus on equity.
Summary: To advance the science of implementation with a focus on health equity, we reflect on the essential groundwork needed to promote bi-directional learning between the fields of implementation science and health equity research and recommend (1) building capacity among researchers and research institutions for health equity-focused and community-engaged implementation science; (2) incorporating health equity considerations across all key implementation focus areas (e.g., adaptations, implementation strategies, study design, determinants, and outcomes); and (3) continuing a focus on transdisciplinary opportunities in health equity research and implementation science. We believe that these recommendations can help advance implementation science by incorporating an explicit focus on health equity in the context of cancer prevention and control and beyond.
Citation: Adsul P, Chambers D, Brandt HM, Fernandez ME, Ramanadhan S, Torres E, Leeman J, Baquero B, Fleischer L, Escoffery C, Emmons KM, Soler M, Oh A, Korn AR, Wheeler S, Shelton RC. Grounding implementation science in health equity for cancer prevention and control. Implementation Science Communications. 2022: 3;56. Published 2022 Jun 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00311-4