A Novel Mixed Methods Approach Combining Geospatial Mapping and Qualitative Inquiry to Identify Multilevel Policy Targets: The Focused Rapid Assessment Process (fRAP) Applied to Cancer Survivorship

fRAP 2.0: a community engagement method applied to cervical cancer disparities among Hispanic women

focused Rapid Assessment Process (fRAP) 2.0 is a community engagement approach combining geospatial mapping with rapid qualitative assessment in cyclical fashion within communities to capture multifactorial and multilevel features impacting primary care problems. fRAP 2.0 offers primary care researchers a methodology framework for exploring complex community features that impact primary healthcare delivery and outcomes. The fRAP 2.0 study design expands the fRAP from a sequential design to a cyclical process of geospatial mapping and rapid qualitative assessment in search of modifiable contextual factors. Research participants are stakeholders from various socioecological levels whose perspectives inform study outcomes that they may use to then become the agents of change for the very problems they helped explore. Here, we present a proof-of-concept study for fRAP 2.0 examining disparities in cervical cancer mortality rates among Hispanic women in Texas. The primary outcomes of interest are features at the community level, medical health system level and regional government policy levels that offer opportunities for collaborative interventions to improve cervical cancer outcomes. In this study, geospatial mapping of county and ZIP code-level variables impacting postdiagnosis cervical cancer care at community, medical and policy levels were created using publicly available data and then overlaid with maps created with Texas Cancer Registry data for cervical cancer cases in three of the largest population counties. Geographically disparate areas were then qualitatively explored using participant observation and ethnographic field work, alongside 39 key informant interviews. Roundtable discussion groups and stakeholder engagement existed at every phase of the study. Applying the fRAP 2.0 method, we created an action-oriented roadmap of next steps to improve cervical cancer care disparities in the three Texas counties with emphasis on the high disparity county. We identified local change targets for advocacy and the results helped convene a stakeholder group that continues to actively create on-the-ground change in the high-disparity county to improve cervical cancer outcomes for Hispanic women.

Approaches to enabling rapid evaluation of innovations in health and social care: a scoping review of evidence from high-income countries

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic increased the demand for rapid evaluation of innovation in health and social care. Assessment of rapid methodologies is lacking although challenges in ensuring rigour and effective use of resources are known. We mapped reports of rapid evaluations of health and social care innovations, categorised different approaches to rapid evaluation, explored comparative benefits of rapid evaluation, and identified knowledge gaps.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) databases were searched through 13 September 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included publications reporting primary research or methods for rapid evaluation of interventions or services in health and social care in high-income countries.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers developed and piloted a data extraction form. One reviewer extracted data, a second reviewer checked 10% of the studies; disagreements and uncertainty were resolved through consensus. We used narrative synthesis to map different approaches to conducting rapid evaluation.

RESULTS

We identified 16 759 records and included 162 which met inclusion criteria.We identified four main approaches for rapid evaluation: (1) Using methodology designed specifically for rapid evaluation; (2) Increasing rapidity by doing less or using less time-intensive methodology; (3) Using alternative technologies and/or data to increase speed of existing evaluation method; (4) Adapting part of non-rapid evaluation.The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an increase in publications and some limited changes in identified methods. We found little research comparing rapid and non-rapid evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a lack of clarity about what 'rapid evaluation' means but identified some useful preliminary categories. There is a need for clarity and consistency about what constitutes rapid evaluation; consistent terminology in reporting evaluations as rapid; development of specific methodologies for making evaluation more rapid; and assessment of advantages and disadvantages of rapid methodology in terms of rigour, cost and impact.

“Let’s Use This Mess to Our Advantage”: Calls to Action to Optimize School Nutrition Program beyond the Pandemic

School nutrition programs mitigate food insecurity and promote healthy eating by offering consistent, nutritious meals to school-aged children in communities across the United States; however, stringent policy guidelines and contextual challenges often limit participation. During COVID-19 school closures, most school nutrition programs remained operational, adapting quickly and innovating to maximize reach. This study describes semi-structured interviews with 23 nutrition directors in North Carolina, which aimed to identify multi-level contextual factors that influenced implementation, as well as ways in which the innovations during COVID-19 could translate to permanent policy and practice change and improve program reach. Interviews were conducted during initial school closures (May–August 2020) and were deductively analyzed using the Social Ecological Model (SEM) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Analysis elicited multiple relevant contextual factors: director characteristics (motivation, leadership style, experience), key implementation stakeholders (internal staff and external partners), inner setting (implementation climate, local leadership engagement, available resources, structural characteristics), and outer setting (state leadership engagement, external policies and incentives). Findings confirm the strength and resilience of program directors and staff, the importance of developing strategies to strengthen external partnerships and emergency preparedness, and strong support from directors for policies offering free meals to all children.

Qualitative Exploration of Geospatially Identified Bright Spots and Priority Areas to Improve Diabetes Management

Background:

Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) results in significant morbidity and mortality and is associated with disparities in prevalence, treatment, and outcomes. GIS can identify geographically based disparities. In the focused Rapid Assessment Process (fRAP)—a novel mixed-method study design—GIS is combined with qualitative inquiry to inform practice interventions and policy changes.

Methods:

Using fRAP, areas with poor T2DM outcomes (priority areas) as well as areas with positive T2DM outcomes (bright spots) were identified, focus groups were conducted, and responses analyzed for intervention opportunities. Focus group participants were English- and Spanish-speaking patients with T2DM living in one of the identified areas. Qualitative analysis consisted of initial coding with a priori themes from the focus group question guide, followed by identification of emergent themes within each defined category.

Results:

The a priori categories included Facilitators, Barriers, Strategies, and Impact of Diabetes Diagnosis. Emerging recurrent themes were Interactions with Medical Professionals, Medications, Lifestyle Management, Family Motivators and Support, Self-Efficacy, and Social Needs and Community Resources.

Conclusions:

Thematic results from focus groups can be used by practices to improve T2DM care through educating patients about chronic disease and nutrition, connecting them to diabetes-specific services, learning how diabetes fits in the context of patient lives, and eliciting patient values and motivations to improve diabetes self-management. Findings also may be used by health care professionals to inform community-based advocacy efforts, interventions, and future research.