Dataset Information

Evidentiary needs of US public health departments with a mission to advance equity and health: a qualitative analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

We sought the perspectives of lead public health officials working to improve health equity in the USA regarding the drivers of scientific evidence use, the supply of scientific evidence and the gap between their evidentiary needs and the available scientific evidence.

Design

We conducted 25 semistructured qualitative interviews (April 2017 to June 2017) with lead public health officials and their designees. All interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed.

Setting

Public health departments from all geographical regions in the USA.

Participants

Participants included lead public health officials (20) and their designees (5) from public health departments that were either accredited or part of the Big Cities Health Coalition.

Results

Many respondents were using scientific evidence in the context of grant writing. Professional organisations and government agencies, rather than specific researchers or research journals, were the primary sources of scientific evidence. Respondents wanted to see more locally tailored cost-effectiveness research and often desired to participate in the planning phase of research projects. In addition to the scientific content recommendations, respondents felt the usefulness of scientific evidence could be improved by simplifying it and framing it for diverse audiences including elected officials and community stakeholders.

Conclusions

Respondents are eager to use scientific evidence but also need to have it designed and packaged in ways that meet their needs.

SUBMITTER: Narain KDC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6169768 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evidentiary needs of US public health departments with a mission to advance equity and health: a qualitative analysis.

Narain Kimberly Danae Cauley KDC Zimmerman Frederick J FJ Richards Jessica J Fielding Jonathan J Cole Brian B Teutsch Steven S Rhoads Natalie N

BMJ open 20180926 9

<h4>Objectives</h4>We sought the perspectives of lead public health officials working to improve health equity in the USA regarding the drivers of scientific evidence use, the supply of scientific evidence and the gap between their evidentiary needs and the available scientific evidence.<h4>Design</h4>We conducted 25 semistructured qualitative interviews (April 2017 to June 2017) with lead public health officials and their designees. All interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed.<h4> ...[more]

PMID: 30257845

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundScreening in primary care for unmet individual social needs (e.g., housing instability, food insecurity, unemployment, social isolation) is critical to addressing their deleterious effects on patients' health outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the first study to apply an implementation science framework to identify implementation factors and best practices for social needs screening and response.MethodsGuided by the Health Equity Implementation Framework (HEIF), we collected qualitative data from clinicians and patients to evaluate barriers and facilitators to implementing the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients' Assets, Risks, and Experiences (PRAPARE), a standardized social needs screening and response protocol, in a federally qualified health center. Eligible patients who received the PRAPARE as a standard of care were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. We also obtained front-line clinician perspectives in a semi-structured focus group. HEIF domains informed a directed content analysis.ResultsPatients and clinicians (i.e., case managers) reported implementation barriers and facilitators across multiple domains (e.g., clinical encounters, patient and provider factors, inner context, outer context, and societal influence). Implementation barriers included structural and policy level determinants related to resource availability, discrimination, and administrative burden. Facilitators included evidence-based clinical techniques for shared decision making (e.g., motivational interviewing), team-based staffing models, and beliefs related to alignment of the PRAPARE with patient-centered care. We found high levels of patient acceptability and opportunities for adaptation to increase equitable adoption and reach.ConclusionOur results provide practical insight into the implementation of the PRAPARE or similar social needs screening and response protocols in primary care at the individual encounter, organizational, community, and societal levels. Future research should focus on developing discrete implementation strategies to promote social needs screening and response, and associated multisector care coordination to improve health outcomes and equity for vulnerable and marginalized patient populations.

Project description:BackgroundMultisectoral and public-private partnerships are critical in building the necessary infrastructure, policy, and political will to ameliorate health inequity. A focus on health equity by researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers prioritizes action to address the systematic, avoidable, and unjust differences in health status across population groups sustained over time and generations that are beyond the control of individuals. Health equity requires a collective process in shaping the health and wellbeing of the communities in which we live, learn, work, play, and grow. This paper explores multisectoral leaders' understanding of the social, environmental, and economic conditions that produce and sustain health inequity in northern Arizona, a geographically expansive, largely rural, and culturally diverse region.MethodsData are drawn from the Southwest Health Equity Research Collaborative's Regional Health Equity Survey (RHES). The RHES is a community-engaged, cross-sectional online survey comprised of 31 close-ended and 17 open-ended questions. Created to assess cross-sectoral regional and collective capacity to address health inequity and inform multisectoral action for improving community health, the RHES targeted leaders representing five rural northern Arizona counties and 13 sectors. Select open-ended questions were analyzed using an a priori coding scheme and emergent coding with thematic analysis.ResultsAlthough leaders were provided the definition and asked to describe the root causes of inequities, the majority of leaders described social determinants of health (SDoH). When leaders described root causes of health inequity, they articulated systemic factors affecting their communities, describing discrimination and unequal allocation of power and resources. Most leaders described the SDoH by discussing compounding factors of poverty, transportation, housing, and rurality among others, that together exacerbate inequity. Leaders also identified specific strategies to address SDoH and advance health equity in their communities, ranging from providing direct services to activating partnerships across organizations and sectors in advocacy for policy change.ConclusionOur findings indicate that community leaders in the northern Arizona region acknowledge the importance of multisectoral collaborations in improving health equity for the populations that they serve. However, a common understanding of health equity remains to be widely established, which is essential for conducting effective multisectoral work to advance health equity.

Project description:International collaborations have become the standard model for global health research and often include researchers and institutions from high income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While such collaborations are important for generating new knowledge that will help address global health inequities, there is evidence to suggest that current forms of collaboration may reproduce unequal power relations. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study with scientists, researchers and those involved in research management, working in international health collaborations. Interviews were conducted between October 2019 and March 2020. We conducted 13 interviews with 15 participants. From our findings, we derive three major themes. First, our results reflect characteristics of equitable, collaborative research relationships. Here we find both relational features, specifically trust and belonging, and structural features, including clear contractual agreements, capacity building, inclusive divisions of labour, and the involvement of local communities. Second, we discuss obstacles to develop equitable collaborations. These include exclusionary labour practices, donor-driven research agendas, overall research culture, lack of accountability and finally, the inadequate financing of indirect costs for LMIC institutions. Third, we discuss the responsibilities for promoting science equity of funders, LMIC researchers, LMIC institutions, and LMIC governments. While other empirical studies have suggested similar features of equity, our findings extend these features to include local communities as collaborators in research projects and not only as beneficiaries. We also suggest the importance of funders paying for indirect costs, without which the capacity of LMIC institutions will continually erode. And finally, our study shows the responsibilities of LMIC actors in developing equitable collaborations, which have largely been absent from the literature.

Dataset Information

Evidentiary needs of US public health departments with a mission to advance equity and health: a qualitative analysis.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Evidentiary needs of US public health departments with a mission to advance equity and health: a qualitative analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets