Health Equity Archives - Implementation Science at UW

✪ Design and method considerations for equity-centered implementation science and practice: A PEDALs approach

Abstract:

The persistent "know-do gap"—the lag between the development of evidence-based practices (EBPs) and their routine use in health systems—remains a barrier to achieving global health equity. Implementation science offers a pathway to bridge this gap, but without an explicit equity focus, it risks reinforcing existing disparities. In this perspective, we propose an equity-centered adaptation of the PEDALs model (Problem, Evidence-based practice, Determinants, Action, Long-term use, and scale) to guide more just and context-sensitive implementation efforts in global health.

We describe how each stage of PEDALs can be used to embed equity considerations in implementation research and practice. These include identifying root causes of inequity-linked health problems (P), using both scientific and practice-based evidence while adapting or de-implementing interventions (E), engaging marginalized voices when analyzing barriers and facilitators (D), co-designing contextually grounded implementation strategies (A), and measuring long-term implementation outcomes through an equity lens (L), including attention to scalability, iterative learning, and proper design and methods (s). We highlight methodological considerations—such as hybrid designs, embedded and workflow-based research, and rapid and participatory methods—that support timely, relevant, and equitable implementation. Our model builds on the concept of “radical incrementalism” to emphasize steady, equity-driven change that is responsive to diverse settings, especially in low- and middle-income countries. This modified PEDALs-based approach offers a practical structure for design and methodological considerations in advancing equity-centered implementation science.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

✪ Towards a decolonising implementation science: principles from Indigenous leadership

Abstract:

Summary

Implementation science is a diverse and evolving field that draws on multiple epistemologies and methods. However, the dominant foundations of implementation science remain settler colonial, biomedical, and positivist. In Indigenous and other marginalised settings, these foundations can result in poor epistemological, ethical, and practical fit. We argue that a paradigm shift that is grounded in Indigenous values, sovereignty, relationality, and epistemologies is needed. We propose seven guiding principles for a decolonising implementation science. Drawing from emerging scholarship and innovative Indigenous-led frameworks from the USA, Aotearoa New Zealand, and Australia, these principles centre sovereignty, strengths-based approaches, and relational accountability. These principles also offer a roadmap to redefine rigour, expand what counts as evidence, and ensure genuine community control over the research process. Although born from Indigenous experience, these principles provide a framework for transforming implementation science to be more just, equitable, and effective for marginalised communities globally.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

Conducting an implementation intervention study with American Indian and Alaska Native communities: Methodological considerations

✪ A mapping review and critique of the literature on translation, dissemination, and implementation capacity building initiatives for different audiences

Abstract:

Background

Capacity building is critical for research and practice as the fields of dissemination, implementation and translation science continue to grow. Some scholars state that capacity building should be grounded in competencies. However, the fields are unclear in determining which competencies are relevant for whom, including the content and appropriate level of information and skills for different roles. The goal of this study was to catalogue competencies across current D&I capacity building initiatives.

Methods

We conducted a mapping review to examine to what extent are theories or frameworks used to guide capacity building, who is being trained, to what extent do capacity building initiatives include a health equity focus, which competencies are being outlined or suggested, how are they being defined, and whether the competencies can be organized along different roles of participants. As a mapping review, we broadly searched for papers using the keywords “training D&I” OR “training implementation” OR “training translation” OR “training dissemination” and included debate and empirical papers about capacity building initiatives in the sample.

Results

A total of 42 articles (from 2011 to 2024) were reviewed, including training development and/or evaluation (n = 25) and conceptual (n = 17) articles. Of the training articles, 13 (52%) specified a framework that guided training. Participants in training included graduate students, researchers, practitioners, and mixed audiences. Fourteen (56%) of the trainings were conducted in the USA, seven (28%) in Canada and other countries. The length of training ranged from two days to two years. Four trainings had an explicit focus on equity. A total of 307 unique competencies were identified and divided into themes: Knowledge, Skills, Engagement with Other Disciplines, Equity, Attitude and Relational Aspects, Capacity Building, Quality Improvement, and Mentorship.

Conclusions

While there are many D&I capacity building initiatives, we found little consistency in competencies that guided training activities for diverse audiences. Few training activities explicitly identified guiding theories or frameworks or tailored competencies toward different levels of interest in D&I research. Even fewer had an explicit focus on health equity. As the fields continue to foster capacity building programs, it will be important to think critically about the types of competencies we are developing for whom, how, and why.

Contributions to the literature

This study provides a critical step in the dissemination, implementation and translation capacity building literatures by cataloging competencies related to these sciences, and by offering suggestions for capacity building initiatives.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

✪ Mental health policy implementation in low- and middle-income countries: a realist review protocol

Abstract:

Introduction

Formulating and implementing mental health policy is foundational to public mental health. The implementation of mental health policy varies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with some countries having better implementation outcomes than others. Low implementation poses challenges relating to addressing the high burden and wide treatment gaps of mental health conditions. While different implementation strategies are applied to implement mental health policy in different contexts, there is little knowledge of what category of strategies are being used and how and why their implementation produces varied outcomes. To this end, we propose to conduct a realist synthesis to explain how, why, for whom, and under what health system conditions certain policy implementation strategies work or not in LMICs.

Methods and analysis

This paper will detail the protocol on conducting a realist review of the literature on mental health policy implementation in LMICs. Realist reviews/syntheses are theory-driven reviews designed to formulate and test (confirm, refute, or refine) initial programme theories to explain how, why, for whom and under what contexts a programme, intervention or policy works as intended or not. Theory is built by exploring and abstracting context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations in the data. These CMO configurations are identified through retroductive theorizing, a mechanism-centred approach to theory development. We will adopt these steps to guide the process of realist synthesis: i) identify the research question, clarifying the scope of the review and formulating the initial programme theory (ii) conducting background searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, Africa-Wide Information, African Index Medicus (AIM), CINAHL and Scopus databases, and grey literature (iii) appraising the quality of studies and data extraction and (iv) synthesising data.

Registration

The review is part of a realist evaluation exploring mental health policy implementation in LMICs and is registered under PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42024580312). Findings will inform the development of initial mental health policy implementation programme theories explaining why and how mental health policy implementation in LMICs works.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

✪ Development of learning health system competency items related to health and healthcare equity and justice for rehabilitation researchers

Authors:

Pamela M. Dunlap, Kathleen M. Poploski, Catherine A. Anderson, Thiru M. Annaswamy, Melissa A. Clark, Peter C. Coyle, Natalie F. Douglas, Ann Marie Flores, Janet K. Freburger, Brian J. Hafner, Kenneth J. Harwood, Jeanne M. Hoffman, Adam R. Kinney, Linda Resnik, Kristin Ressel, Margarite J. Whitten, and Christine M. McDonough

^{University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.}

✪ Open Access

Published: January 2025

Read the full text in the open access journal Learning Health Systems

Abstract:

Introduction

In 2021, the Learning Health Systems Rehabilitation Research Network (LeaRRn) developed and administered a needs assessment survey, based on the Agency on Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ's) original seven domains of learning health systems (LHS) researcher core competencies, to identify knowledge and interest in LHS research competencies among rehabilitation researchers. In 2022, the AHRQ added a new health and healthcare equity and justice (HE) domain to the existing seven domains for LHS researcher core competencies.

Methods

LeaRRn utilized methods similar to those employed in the development of their original needs assessment survey to generate and refine competency items for the HE domain. In this report, we describe the methods used to develop these HE competency items.

Results & Conclusions

Other training programs and LHS researchers may use the competency items developed for this needs assessment survey to identify training opportunities in the HE domain.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

✪ Applying health equity implementation science frameworks to population genetic screening

Abstract:

Introduction

Implementation science frameworks with a focus on health equity have emerged to help guide the introduction of new interventions into healthcare and community settings while limiting health disparities. The purpose of this research was to explore the applicability of such frameworks to guide the equitable implementation of population genetic screening programs.

Methods

We searched PubMed and reference lists for relevant frameworks and examples of their use in health settings. We then assessed if and how selected frameworks provide guidance for different stages of population genetic screening: recruitment, sample collection, result return, follow-up care and long-term management, and cascade screening. Findings were synthesized into a list of health equity considerations specific to each stage.

Results

We identified 5 implementation frameworks that focus on health equity. Guidance varied by framework type: determinant (explaining what affects implementation outcomes), process (translating research into practice), or evaluation (assessing implementation). Common characteristics included focusing implementation efforts on populations who have historically experienced health inequities and adapting interventions to fit local contexts. Process models also highlighted the importance of community partnerships.

Discussion

Overall, frameworks offered broad recommendations applicable to population genetic screening program implementation. However, gaps still exist in guidance provided for later stages of population genetic screening. To improve the equitable implementation of genetic screening, future programs may benefit from utilizing one or more of these frameworks or by incorporating the health equity considerations and outcomes compiled in this analysis.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

✪ Are we being equitable enough? Lessons learned from sites lost in an implementation trial

Abstract:

Background

There is a growing interest in practice-based implementation research, yet too often research prioritizes and is most successful in academic settings. During a national implementation trial to evaluate the effectiveness of Collaborative Care for co-occurring opioid use and mental health disorders, we lost three of our 11 participating implementation sites, all representing community sites.

Method

To better understand needed supports for implementation trial participation, we conducted exit interviews (n = 5) with key staff at these community sites. Interview transcripts were double-coded and analyzed using Rapid Assessment Process. Qualitative themes were iteratively reviewed by the study team.

Results

Three themes emerged characterizing challenges for community sites, including that: (1) research threatens sites’ most precious resource—staff; (2) staff lack comfort with and skills for research; and (3) research participation in its current form does not offer a clear return on investment.

Conclusions

Learnings from this work illuminate some of the barriers community sites face when trying to participate in multisite implementation research. An undercurrent of participant perspectives was the belief that community sites like theirs are just not set up to successfully participate in clinical trial research, including population-based implementation trials. Future implementation trials should consider strategies that disrupt traditional approaches, increasing the equitable inclusion of diverse practice settings in implementation research.

Plain Language Summary

There is a growing interest in research that reflects community settings. Yet too often, research is most successful in academic settings. During a national implementation trial to evaluate the effectiveness of Collaborative Care for co-occurring opioid use and mental health disorders, we lost three of our 11 participating implementation sites, all representing community sites. To better understand their perspectives, we conducted exit interviews (n = 5) with staff at these community sites. Interview transcripts were double-coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. Analysis identified three themes: (1) research threatens sites’ most precious resource—staff; (2) staff lack comfort with and skills for research, and (3) research participation in its current form does not offer a clear return on investment. Community sites face many barriers to participating in implementation research trials. Future trials should consider ways to disrupt traditional approaches and increase the equitable inclusion of community settings in implementation research.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

✪ Addressing Disparities in Acute Stroke Management and Prognosis

Abstract:

There are now abundant data demonstrating disparities in acute stroke management and prognosis; however, interventions to reduce these disparities remain limited. This special report aims to provide a critical review of the current landscape of disparities in acute stroke care and highlight opportunities to use implementation science to reduce disparities throughout the early care continuum. In the prehospital setting, stroke symptom recognition campaigns that have been successful in reducing prehospital delays used a multilevel approach to education, including mass media, culturally tailored community education, and professional education. The mobile stroke unit is an organizational intervention that has the potential to provide more equitable access to timely thrombolysis and thrombectomy treatments. In the hospital setting, interventions to address implicit biases among health care providers in acute stroke care decision‐making are urgently needed as part of a multifaceted approach to advance stroke equity. Implementing stroke systems of care interventions, such as evidence‐based stroke care protocols at designated stroke centers, can have a broader public health impact and may help reduce geographic, racial, and ethnic disparities in stroke care, although further research is needed. The long‐term impact of disparities in acute stroke care cannot be underestimated. The consistent trend of longer time to treatment for Black and Hispanic people experiencing stroke has direct implications on long‐term disability and independence after stroke. A learning health system model may help expedite the translation of evidence‐based interventions into clinical practice to reduce disparities in stroke care.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

✪ Mending the gap: Measurement needs to address policy implementation through a health equity lens

Abstract:

Policies represent a key opportunity to improve the health outcomes of populations, and if implemented well, can reduce disparities affecting marginalized populations. Many policies are only evaluated on whether they elicit their intended health outcome. However, a lack of understanding regarding if and how they are implemented may hinder the intended impact overall and on addressing health disparities. Implementation science offers an array of frameworks and methodological approaches for assessing policy delivery, yet few examples exist that meaningfully include health equity as a core focus.

This commentary describes the importance of equity-informed implementation measurement by providing case examples and implications for assessment. In addition, we highlight examples of emerging work in policy implementation grounded in health equity with suggested steps for moving the field forward. The ultimate goal is to move toward open-access measurement approaches that can be adapted to study implementation of a variety of policies at different stages of implementation, driven by input from marginalized populations and implementation practitioners, to move the needle on addressing health disparities.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Global Health Research and Policy

Abstract:

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Lancet Global Health

Abstract:

Summary

Authors:

Subscription Required for Full Text Access

Read the full text in the subscription access journal Contemporary Clinical Trials

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science Communications

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Contributions to the literature

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal PLOS One

Abstract:

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Registration

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Learning Health Systems

Abstract:

Introduction

Methods

Results & Conclusions

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Frontiers in Health Services

Abstract:

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Research and Practice

Abstract:

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Plain Language Summary

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Journal of the American Heart Association

Abstract:

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract: