Assessing researchers' capabilities, opportunities, and motivation to conduct equity-oriented dissemination and implementation research, an exploratory cross-sectional study

Capabilities, opportunities, motivations, and practices of different sector professionals working on community environments to improve health

OBJECTIVE

With rising healthcare costs in Canada from chronic conditions, individual behaviour change interventions in the clinical settings need to be complemented by a determinants of health approach, where multi-sector professionals assist in the creation of healthier community environments. This study sought to gain insights into capabilities, opportunities, motivations, and behaviours (COM-B) of Canadian multi-sector professionals for working together to improve built environments (BE) for health.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted with 61 multi-sector professionals. A 49-item questionnaire measuring constructs of COM-B for healthy BE practices was administered.

RESULTS

Public health (PH) professionals were more motivated by personal interest/values in healthy BE and the presence of scientific evidence on BE design health impacts as compared with planning and policy/program development (PPD) professionals. Planning professionals were more likely to be motivated by healthy BE legislation/regulations/codes than PPD professionals. The practice of taking responsibility for the inclusion of healthy features into BE designs was reported more often by planning and other professionals compared to PH professionals. Results trended towards significance for opportunities as a predictor of healthy BE practices among all professionals.

CONCLUSION

Though motivators vary among different sector professionals, opportunities may be the most important driver of healthy BE practices and potentially a target to improve multi-sector professional practices in Canada. Future research should confirm findings of this first study of professional practice drivers guided by a theoretical behaviour change framework.

A Systematic Review of Implementation Research on Determinants and Strategies of Effective HIV Interventions for Men Who Have Sex with Men in the United States

Men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately affected by HIV, accounting for two-thirds of HIV cases in the United States despite representing ∼5% of the adult population. Delivery and use of existing and highly effective HIV prevention and treatment strategies remain suboptimal among MSM. To summarize the state of the science, we systematically review implementation determinants and strategies of HIV-related health interventions using implementation science frameworks. Research on implementation barriers has focused predominantly on characteristics of individual recipients (e.g., ethnicity, age, drug use) and less so on deliverers (e.g., nurses, physicians), with little focus on system-level factors. Similarly, most strategies target recipients to influence their uptake and adherence, rather than improving and supporting implementation systems. HIV implementation research is burgeoning; future research is needed to broaden the examination of barriers at the provider and system levels, as well as expand knowledge on how to match strategies to barriers-particularly to address stigma. Collaboration and coordination among federal, state, and local public health agencies; community-based organizations; health care providers; and scientists are important for successful implementation of HIV-related health innovations.

Identifying research practices toward achieving health equity principles within the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network

PURPOSE

Although there is national recognition for health equity-oriented research, there is limited guidance for researchers to engage partnerships that promote health equity in cancer research. The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network's (CPCRN) Health Equity Work Group developed a toolkit to guide researchers in equitable collaborations.

METHODS

The CPCRN's Health Equity Work Group collectively outlined health and racial equity principles guiding research collaborations with partners that include communities, community-based organizations, implementing partners in the clinical setting including providers and health care organizations, and policy makers. Using a network-wide survey to crowdsource information around ongoing practices, we leveraged and integrated the network's experience and collaborations.

RESULTS

Data from the survey formed the preliminary basis for the toolkit, with a focus on sharing fiscal resources with partners, training and capacity building, collaborative decision-making, community-driven research agenda setting, and sustainability. The final toolkit provides reflection considerations for researchers and collated exemplary resources, supported by the contemporary research.

CONCLUSIONS

The toolkit provides a guide to researchers at all experience levels wanting to engage in equitable research collaborations. Future efforts are underway to evaluate whether and how researchers within and outside CPCRN are able to incorporate these principles in research collaborations.

Advancing health equity through nursing research

BACKGROUND

Health inequities are major predictors of poor health and remain a complex and persistent challenge globally and in the United States. Research has documented the underlying causes and mechanisms that give rise to health disparities. However, it lacks adequate attention to the strategies needed to build upon promulgated research to address equity-based challenges to improve health.

PURPOSE

This paper describes how building and supporting diverse research teams can play a central role in increasing the research capacity and participation of diverse populations to improve the health of individuals, families, and communities.

METHODS

Exemplars from work and discussion of strategies to grow nursing's health equity workforce are presented.

DISCUSSION

Actions to build and leverage partnerships to expand capacity, maximize the impact of health equity outcomes, and cultivate a supportive environment to grow the health equity scientific workforce are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Nurse scientists can address health equity through the research process.

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

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.

Results

Centers reported a range of approaches focusing on health equity in implementation research and capacity-building efforts, including (1) engaging diverse community partners/settings in making decisions about research priorities and projects; (2) applying health equity within a single TMF applied across projects or various TMFs used in specific projects; (3) evaluating health equity in operationalizing and measuring health and implementation outcomes; (4) building capacity for health equity-focused implementation science among trainees, early career scholars, and partnering organizations; and (5) leveraging varying levels of institutional resources and efforts to engage, include, and support underrepresented scholars.

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.

Doing community-based research during dual public health emergencies (COVID and overdose)

Meaningful engagement and partnerships with people who use drugs are essential to conducting research that is relevant and impactful in supporting desired outcomes of drug consumption as well as reducing drug-related harms of overdose and COVID-19. Community-based participatory research is a key strategy for engaging communities in research that directly affects their lives. While there are growing descriptions of community-based participatory research with people who use drugs and identification of key principles for conducting research, there is a gap in relation to models and frameworks to guide research partnerships with people who use drugs. The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for research partnerships between people who use drugs and academic researchers, collaboratively developed and implemented as part of an evaluation of a provincial prescribed safer supply initiative introduced during dual public health emergencies (overdose and COVID-19) in British Columbia, Canada. The framework shifts from having researchers choose among multiple models (advisory, partnership and employment) to incorporating multiple roles within an overall community-based participatory research approach. Advocacy by and for drug users was identified as a key role and reason for engaging in research. Overall, both academic researchers and Peer Research Associates benefited within this collaborative partnerships approach. Each offered their expertise, creating opportunities for omni-directional learning and enhancing the research. The shift from fixed models to flexible roles allows for a range of involvement that accommodates varying time, energy and resources. Facilitators of involvement include development of trust and partnering with networks of people who use drugs, equitable pay, a graduate-level research assistant dedicated to ongoing orientation and communication, technical supports as well as fluidity in roles and opportunities. Key challenges included working in geographically dispersed locations, maintaining contact and connection over the course of the project and ensuring ongoing sustainable but flexible employment.

Challenges and Opportunities for Equity in US School Meal Programs: A Scoping Review of Qualitative Literature Regarding the COVID-19 Emergency

The emergency school meals program provided free meals to children in the United States (US) during COVID-19-related school closures. This scoping review aims to synthesize the existing qualitative empirical evidence published between March 2020 and January 2023 on the operations and utilization of emergency school meal programs during the pandemic. Qualitative, US-based peer-reviewed literature was collected from three sources: (1) parent review of all federal nutrition assistance programs; (2) systematic search of four databases; and (3) manual search of grey literature. Identified scientific articles and grey literature reports (n = 183) were uploaded into Covidence and screened for duplicates and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Our final sample included 21 articles/reports, including 14 mixed methods and seven qualitative-only projects. Articles spanned all U.S. states. Articles had similar research questions to understand school meals and/or general food access during COVID-19, with an emphasis on long-term policy implications. Hybrid deductive/inductive analytic coding was used to analyze data, utilizing domains from the Getting to Equity Framework (GTE). GTE considers multi-level factors that influence nutrition behavior while centering more equitable pathways to improve nutrition security and reduce adverse health. Findings were sorted into two categories: operational challenges during the pandemic and solutions to address inequities in school meal distribution during and after the pandemic, particularly during school closures such as summers or future emergencies. Key challenges related to supply chain issues, safety, and balancing families' needs with limited staff capacity. Programs addressed equity by (a) reducing deterrents through federally issued waivers and increased communications which allowed the serving of meals by programs to families who previously did not have access, (b) building community capacity through collaborations and partnerships which allowed for increased distribution, and (c) preparing and distributing healthy options unless barriers in supply chain superseded the effort. This review highlights the importance of emergency school meal programs and provides insights into addressing challenges and promoting equity in future out-of-school times. These insights could be applied to policy and practice change to optimize program budgets, increase reach equitably, and improve access to nutritious meals among populations at highest risk for nutrition insecurity.

Perspectives on learning to practice reflexivity while engaging communities in implementation science

Background

As implementation scientists and practitioners engage community members and service users, reflexivity rises as a critical approach for managing power imbalances and effective collaborative work to promote equity. Reflexivity is an approach for acknowledging scientists' own positions, including their understanding and limits of how they view their phenomena of inquiry. We describe our perspective practicing reflexivity as an implementation science team new to community engagement.

Methods

We spent over two years learning principles of Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) to inform implementation science and practice, then applied CPBR principles into a new community-academic partnership in August 2020 for and with veterans of the United States Military living in rural Arkansas. We used five methods to practice reflexivity for the first time: identifying positionality, writing fieldnotes, obtaining mentorship on technical aspects, comparing head notes, and consulting reference materials.

Discussion

We found multiple methods for practicing reflexivity to be feasible, although difficult to stay consistent with busy schedules. Fieldnotes especially required commitment and were important not to minimize. Written fieldnotes enabled us to reflect on successes and missteps, funneling into action planning. Head notes allowed emotional catharsis and to generate insights based on each other's perspectives. Referencing books or course modules reminded us of ideal CBPR principles. Discussion with mentors helped us with technical aspects and balancing real-world challenges with ideal CBPR principles. Our methods to practice reflexivity were valuable and directly impacted process and research outcomes. Future training for implementation science and practice might consider reflexivity practice as a core competency.

Grounding implementation science in health equity for cancer prevention and control

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. 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.