Dataset Information

The health equity implementation framework: proposal and preliminary study of hepatitis C virus treatment.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Researchers could benefit from methodological advancements to advance uptake of new treatments while also reducing healthcare disparities. A comprehensive determinants framework for healthcare disparity implementation challenges is essential to accurately understand an implementation problem and select implementation strategies.

Methods

We integrated and modified two conceptual frameworks-one from implementation science and one from healthcare disparities research to develop the Health Equity Implementation Framework. We applied the Health Equity Implementation Framework to a historical healthcare disparity challenge-hepatitis C virus (HCV) and its treatment among Black patients seeking care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). A specific implementation assessment at the patient level was needed to understand any barriers to increasing uptake of HCV treatment, independent of cost. We conducted a preliminary study to assess how feasible it was for researchers to use the Health Equity Implementation Framework. We applied the framework to design the qualitative interview guide and interpret results. Using quantitative data to screen potential participants, this preliminary study consisted of semi-structured interviews with a purposively selected sample of Black, rural-dwelling, older adult VA patients (N?=?12), living with HCV, from VA medical clinics in the Southern part of the USA.

Results

The Health Equity Implementation Framework was feasible for implementation researchers. Barriers and facilitators were identified at all levels including the patient, provider (recipients), patient-provider interaction (clinical encounter), characteristics of treatment (innovation), and healthcare system (inner and outer context). Some barriers reflected general implementation issues (e.g., poor care coordination after testing positive for HCV). Other barriers were related to healthcare disparities and likely unique to racial minority patients (e.g., testimonials from Black peers about racial discrimination at VA). We identified several facilitators, including patient enthusiasm to obtain treatment because of its high cure rates, and VA clinics that offset HCV stigma by protecting patient confidentiality.

Conclusion

The Health Equity Implementation Framework showcases one way to modify an implementation framework to better assess health equity determinants as well. Researchers may be able to optimize the scientific yield of research inquiries by identifying and addressing factors that promote or impede implementation of novel treatments in addition to eliminating healthcare disparities.

SUBMITTER: Woodward EN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6417278 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The health equity implementation framework: proposal and preliminary study of hepatitis C virus treatment.

Woodward Eva N EN Matthieu Monica M MM Uchendu Uchenna S US Rogal Shari S Kirchner JoAnn E JE

Implementation science : IS 20190312 1

<h4>Background</h4>Researchers could benefit from methodological advancements to advance uptake of new treatments while also reducing healthcare disparities. A comprehensive determinants framework for healthcare disparity implementation challenges is essential to accurately understand an implementation problem and select implementation strategies.<h4>Methods</h4>We integrated and modified two conceptual frameworks-one from implementation science and one from healthcare disparities research to de ...[more]

PMID: 30866982

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:BackgroundHealth intervention implementation in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ), as in many countries globally, usually varies by ethnicity. Māori (the Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa) and Pacific peoples are less likely to receive interventions than other ethnic groups, despite experiencing persistent health inequities. This study aimed to develop an equity-focused implementation framework, appropriate for the Aotearoa NZ context, to support the planning and delivery of equitable implementation pathways for health interventions, with the intention of achieving equitable outcomes for Māori, as well as people originating from the Pacific Islands.MethodsA scoping review of the literature to identify existing equity-focused implementation theories, models and frameworks was undertaken. One of these, the Equity-based framework for Implementation Research (EquIR), was selected for adaptation. The adaptation process was undertaken in collaboration with the project's Māori and consumer advisory groups and informed by the expertise of local health equity researchers and stakeholders, as well as the international implementation science literature.ResultsThe adapted framework's foundation is the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the written agreement between Māori rangatira (chiefs) and the British Crown), and its focus is whānau (extended family)-centred implementation that meets the health and wellbeing aspirations, priorities and needs of whānau. The implementation pathway comprises four main steps: implementation planning, pathway design, monitoring, and outcomes and evaluation, all with an equity focus. The pathway is underpinned by the core constructs of equitable implementation in Aotearoa NZ: collaborative design, anti-racism, Māori and priority population expertise, cultural safety and values-based. Additionally, the contextual factors impacting implementation, i.e. the social, economic, commercial and political determinants of health, are included.ConclusionsThe framework presented in this study is the first equity-focused process-type implementation framework to be adapted for the Aotearoa NZ context. This framework is intended to support and facilitate equity-focused implementation research and health intervention implementation by mainstream health services.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the wealth of frameworks on social determinants of health (SDOH), two current limitations include the relative superficial description of factors affecting health and a lack of focus on measuring health equity. The Health Equity Measurement Framework (HEMF) addresses these gaps by providing a more encompassing view of the multitude of SDOH and drivers of health service utilisation and by guiding quantitative analysis for public health surveillance and policy development. The objective of this paper is to present the HEMF, which was specifically designed to measure the direct and indirect effects of SDOH to support improved statistical modelling and measurement of health equity.MethodsBased on a framework synthesis, the HEMF development involved initially integrating theoretical components from existing SDOH and health system utilisation frameworks. To further develop the framework, relevant publications on SDOH and health equity were identified through a literature review in major electronic databases. White and grey literatures were critically reviewed to identify strengths and gaps in the existing frameworks in order to inform the development of a unique health equity measurement framework. Finally, over a two-year period of consultation, scholars, health practitioners, and local policy influencers from municipal and provincial governments provided critical feedback on the framework regarding its components and causal relationships.ResultsThis unified framework includes the socioeconomic, cultural, and political context, health policy context, social stratification, social location, material and social circumstances, environment, biological factors, health-related behaviours and beliefs, stress, quality of care, and healthcare utilisation. Alongside the HEMF's self-exploratory diagram showing the causal pathways in-depth, a number of examples are provided to illustrate the framework's usefulness in measuring and monitoring health equity as well as informing policy-making.ConclusionsThe HEMF highlights intervention areas to be influenced by strategic public policy for any organisation whose purview has an effect on health, including helping non-health sectors (such as education and labour) to better understand how their policies influence population health and perceive their role in health equity promotion. The HEMF recognises the complexity surrounding the SDOH and provides a clear, overarching direction for empirical work on health equity.

Project description:BackgroundThe total cost of treating the 3 million Americans chronically infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) represents a substantial affordability challenge requiring treatment prioritization. This study compares the health and economic outcomes of alternative treatment prioritization schedules.MethodsWe developed a multiyear HCV treatment budget allocation model to evaluate the tradeoffs of 7 prioritization strategies. We used optimization to identify the priority schedule that maximizes population net monetary benefit (NMB). We compared prioritization schedules in terms of the number of individuals treated, the number of individuals who progress to end-stage liver disease (ESLD), and population total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We applied the model to the population of treatment-naive patients with a total annual HCV treatment budget of US$8.6 billion.ResultsFirst-come, first-served (FCFS) treats the fewest people with advanced fibrosis, prevents the fewest cases of ESLD, and gains the fewest QALYs. A schedule developed from optimizing population NMB prioritizes treatment in the first year to patients with moderate to severe fibrosis who are younger than 65 years, followed by older individuals with moderate to severe fibrosis. While this strategy yields the greatest population QALYs, prioritization by disease severity alone prevents more cases of ESLD. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the differences between prioritization schedules are greater when the budget is smaller. A 10% annual treatment price reduction enabled treatment 1 year sooner to several patient subgroups, specifically older patients and those with less severe liver fibrosis.ConclusionIn the absence of a sufficient budget to treat all patients, explicit prioritization targeting younger people with more severe disease first provides the greatest health benefits. We provide our spreadsheet model so that decision makers can compare health tradeoffs of different budget levels and various prioritization strategies with inputs tailored to their population.

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore the process of implementation of an online health information web-based portal and referral system (HealthPathways) using implementation science theory: the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).SettingSouthern Health Region of New Zealand (Otago and Southland).ParticipantsKey Informants (providers and planners of healthcare) (n=10) who were either involved in the process of implementing HealthPathways or who were intended end-users of HealthPathways.MethodsSemistructured interviews were undertaken. A deductive thematic analysis using CFIR was conducted using the framework method.ResultsCFIR postulates that for an intervention to be implemented successfully, account must be taken of the intervention's core components and the adaptable periphery. The core component of HealthPathways-the web portal and referral system that contains a large number of localised clinical care pathways-had been addressed well by the product developers. Little attention had, however, been paid to addressing the adaptable periphery (adaptable elements, structures and systems related to HealthPathways and the organisation into which it was being implemented); it was seen as sufficient just to deliver the web portal and referral system and the set of clinical care pathways as developed to effect successful implementation. In terms of CFIR's 'inner setting' corporate and professional cultures, the implementation climate and readiness for implementation were not properly addressed during implementation. There were also multiple failures of the implementation process (eg, lack of planning and engagement with clinicians). As a consequence, implementation of HealthPathways was highly problematic.ConclusionsThe use of CFIR has furthered our understanding of the factors needed for the successful implementation of a complex health intervention (HealthPathways) in the New Zealand health system. Those charged with implementing complex health interventions should always consider the local context within which they will be implemented and tailor their implementation strategy to address these.

Project description:BackgroundDue to striking disparities in the implementation of healthcare innovations, it is imperative that researchers and practitioners can meaningfully use implementation determinant frameworks to understand why disparities exist in access, receipt, use, quality, or outcomes of healthcare. Our prior work documented and piloted the first published adaptation of an existing implementation determinant framework with health equity domains to create the Health Equity Implementation Framework. We recommended integrating these three health equity domains to existing implementation determinant frameworks: (1) culturally relevant factors of recipients, (2) clinical encounter or patient-provider interaction, and (3) societal context (including but not limited to social determinants of health). This framework was developed for healthcare and clinical practice settings. Some implementation teams have begun using the Health Equity Implementation Framework in their evaluations and asked for more guidance.MethodsWe completed a consensus process with our authorship team to clarify steps to incorporate a health equity lens into an implementation determinant framework.ResultsWe describe steps to integrate health equity domains into implementation determinant frameworks for implementation research and practice. For each step, we compiled examples or practical tools to assist implementation researchers and practitioners in applying those steps. For each domain, we compiled definitions with supporting literature, showcased an illustrative example, and suggested sample quantitative and qualitative measures.ConclusionIncorporating health equity domains within implementation determinant frameworks may optimize the scientific yield and equity of implementation efforts by assessing and ideally addressing implementation and equity barriers simultaneously. These practical guidance and tools provided can assist implementation researchers and practitioners to concretely capture and understand barriers and facilitators to implementation disparities.

Dataset Information

The health equity implementation framework: proposal and preliminary study of hepatitis C virus treatment.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The health equity implementation framework: proposal and preliminary study of hepatitis C virus treatment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets