The "Waze" of Inequity Reduction Frameworks for Organizations: a Scoping Review

Characterizing Organizational Health Equity Capacity Assessments for Public Health Organizations: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Organizational health equity capacity assessments (OCAs) provide a valuable starting point to understand and strengthen an organization's readiness and capacity for health equity. We conducted a scoping review to identify and characterize existing OCAs.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases and practitioner websites to identify peer-reviewed and gray literature articles and tools that measure or assess health equity-related capacity in public health organizations. Seventeen OCAs met the inclusion criteria. We organized primary OCA characteristics and implementation evidence and described them thematically according to key categories.

RESULTS

All identified OCAs assessed organizational readiness or capacity for health equity, and many aimed to guide health equity capacity development. The OCAs differed in regard to thematic focus, structure, and intended audience. Implementation evidence was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

By providing a synthesis of OCAs, these findings can assist public health organizations in selecting and implementing OCAs to assess, strengthen, and monitor their internal organizational capacity for health equity. This synthesis also fills a knowledge gap for those who may be considering developing similar tools in the future.

Operationalizing antiracism in health systems: Strategies state government administrative organizations use towards racial and ethnic mental health equity

Although a growing body of literature recommends strategies for improving racial equity in organizations and populations, little is known about how racial equity goals are operationalized in actuality, particularly in the context of state health and mental health authorities (SH/MHAs) attempting to promote population wellness while navigating bureaucratic and political constraints. This article seeks to examine the number of states engaging in racial equity work in mental health care, what strategies SH/MHAs use to improve their state's racial equity in mental health care, and how the workforce understands these strategies. A brief survey of 47 states found that all but one state (98%) is enacting racial equity interventions in mental health care. Through qualitative interviews with 58 SH/MHA employees in 31 states, I created a taxonomy of activities within six overarching strategies: 1) running a racial equity group; 2) gathering information and data about racial equity; 3) facilitating training and learning for staff and providers; 4) collaborating with partners and engaging with communities; 5) offering information or services to communities and organizations of color; and 6) promoting workforce diversity. I describe specific tactics within each of the strategies as well as the perceived benefits and challenges of the strategies. I argue that strategies bifurcate into development activities, which are activities creating higher-quality racial equity plans, and equity-advancing activities, which are actions directly impacting racial equity. The results have implications for how government reform efforts can impact mental health equity.

Advancing health equity through partnerships of state Medicaid agencies, Medicaid managed care organizations, and health care delivery organizations

Background

Reducing health inequities in marginalized populations, including people with Medicaid insurance, requires care transformation to address medical and social needs that is supported and incentivized by tailored payment methods. Collaboration across health care stakeholders is essential to overcome health system fragmentation and implement sustainable reform in the United States (U.S.). This paper explores how multi-stakeholder teams operationalized the Roadmap to Advance Health Equity model during early stages of their journey to (a) build cultures of equity and (b) integrate health equity into care transformation and payment reform initiatives.

Methods

Advancing Health Equity: Leading Care, Payment, and Systems Transformation is a national program in the U.S. funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that brings together multi-stakeholder teams to design and implement initiatives to advance health equity. Each team consisted of representatives from state Medicaid agencies, Medicaid managed care organizations, and health care delivery organizations in seven U.S. states. Between June and September 2021, semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives (n = 23) from all seven teams about experiences implementing the Roadmap to Advance Health Equity model with technical assistance from Advancing Health Equity.

Results

Facilitators of building cultures of equity included (1) build upon preexisting intra-organizational cultures of equity, (2) recruit and promote diverse staff and build an inclusive culture, and (3) train staff on health equity and anti-racism. Teams faced challenges building inter-organizational cultures of equity. Facilitators of identifying a health equity focus area and its root causes included (1) use data to identify a health equity focus and (2) overcome stakeholder assumptions about inequities. Facilitators of implementing care transformation and payment reform included (1) partner with Medicaid members and individual providers and (2) support and incentivize equitable care and outcomes with payment. Facilitators of sustainability planning included (1) identify evidence of improved health equity focus and (2) maintain relationships among stakeholders. Teams faced challenges determining the role of the state Medicaid agency.

Conclusions

Multi-stakeholder teams shared practical strategies for implementing the Roadmap to Advance Health Equity that can inform future efforts to build intra- and inter-organizational cultures of equity and integrate health equity into care delivery and payment systems.

Advancing Health Equity Efforts to Reduce Obesity: Changing the Course

Population-based solutions are needed to stabilize and then reverse the continued upward trends in obesity prevalence in the US population and worldwide. This review focuses on the related, urgent issue of disparities in obesity prevalence affecting US racial/ethnic minority and other socially marginalized populations. The review provides background on these disparities from a health equity perspective and highlights evidence of progress in equity-focused obesity efforts. Five recommendations for advancing equity efforts are offered as potential approaches to build on progress to date: (a) give equity issues higher priority, (b) adopt a health equity lens, (c) strengthen approaches by using health equity frameworks, (d) broaden the types of policies considered, and (e) emphasize implementation science concepts and tools. Potential challenges and opportunities are identified, including the prospect of longer-term, transformative solutions that integrate global and national initiatives to address obesity, undernutrition, and climate change.

Critical Theory, Culture Change, and Achieving Health Equity in Health Care Settings

Achieving optimal health for all requires confronting the complex legacies of colonialism and white supremacy embedded in all institutions, including health care institutions. As a result, health care organizations committed to health equity must build the capacity of their staff to recognize the contemporary manifestations of these legacies within the organization and to act to eliminate them. In a culture of equity, all employees-individually and collectively-identify and reflect on the organizational dynamics that reproduce health inequities and engage in activities to transform them. The authors describe 5 interconnected change strategies that their medical center uses to build a culture of equity. First, the medical center deliberately grounds diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts (DEI) in critical theory, aiming to illuminate social structures through critical analysis of power relations. Second, its training goes beyond cultural competency and humility to include critical consciousness, which includes the ability to critically analyze conditions in the organizational and broader societal contexts that produce health inequities and act to transform them. Third, it works to strengthen relationships so they can be change vehicles. Fourth, it empowers an implementation team that models a culture of equity. Finally, it aligns equity-focused culture transformation with equity-focused operations transformation to support transformative praxis. These 5 strategies are not a panacea. However, emerging processes and outcomes at the medical center indicate that they may reduce the likelihood of ahistorical and power-blind approaches to equity initiatives and provide employees with some of the critical missing knowledge and skills they need to address the root causes of health inequity.

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.

The Self-assessment for Modification of Anti-Racism Tool (SMART): Addressing Structural Racism in Community Behavioral Health

A national dialogue on systemic racism has been reinvigorated by the highly publicized deaths of several unarmed Black Americans, including George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. In response, the AACP Board considered how to promote concrete, meaningful action to support its membership in measurably addressing structures and policies that promote racism. In this article, literature on existing frameworks aimed at addressing health inequity on the organizational level are reviewed. We introduce the Self-assessment for Modification of Anti-Racism Tool (SMART), a quality improvement tool that aims to meet the AACP's needs in facilitating organizational change in community behavioral healthcare. The AACP SMART's development, components, use, and future directions are described. The AACP SMART builds on prior organizational tools supporting equity work in healthcare, providing a quality improvement tool that incorporates domains specific to structural racism and disparities issues in community behavioral healthcare.

Are there socio-economic inequities in access to reperfusion therapy: The stroke 69 cohort

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Low socio-economic status of individuals has been reported to be associated with a higher incidence of stroke and influence the diagnosis after revascularization. However, whether it is associated with poorer acute stroke management is less clear. To determine whether social deprivation was associated with a poorer access to reperfusion therapy, either intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and/or endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in a population-based cohort.

METHODS

Over a 14-month period, all consecutive adult patients admitted to any emergency department or a comprehensive or primary stroke center (CSC/PSC) of the Rhône county with a confirmed ischemic stroke were included. The socioeconomic status of each patient was measured using the European Deprivation Index (EDI). The association between EDI and access to reperfusion therapy was assessed in univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Among the 1226 consecutive IS patients, 316 (25%) were admitted directly in a PSC or CSC, 241 (19.7%) received a reperfusion therapy; 155 IVT alone, 20 EVT alone, and 66 both therapies. Median age was 79 years, 1030 patients had an EDI level of 1 to 4, and 196 an EDI of 5 (the most deprived group). The most deprived patients (EDI level 5) did not have a poorer access to reperfusion therapy compared to all other patients in univariate (OR 1.22, 95%CI [0.85; 1.77]) nor in multivariate analyses (adjOR 0.97, 95%CI [0.57; 1.66]).

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any significant association between socioeconomic deprivation and access to reperfusion therapy. This suggests that the implementation of EVT was not associated with increased access inequities.

A more practical guide to incorporating health equity domains in implementation determinant frameworks

BACKGROUND

Due 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.

METHODS

We completed a consensus process with our authorship team to clarify steps to incorporate a health equity lens into an implementation determinant framework.

RESULTS

We 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.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating 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.

The views of New Zealand general practitioners and patients on a proposed risk assessment and communication tool: a qualitative study using Normalisation Process Theory

BACKGROUND

Communicating risks of medication harm and obtaining informed consent is difficult due to structural barriers, language and cultural practices, bias and a lack of resources appropriately tailored for the health literacy of most patients. A decision support tool was proposed to alert prescribers of risk and provide tailored information for patients to facilitate informed decision-making with patients and their whānau (family) around medication use. Patient and prescriber co-design was used to ensure the tool was designed to best meet the needs of end-users and avoid increasing health inequity. This paper describes the first stage of the co-design process.

METHOD

Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used to prospectively evaluate the tool. Semi-structured interviews were held with fifteen patients (five Māori, five Pasifika and five NZ European) and nine general practitioners (two Māori and seven European).

RESULTS

Three themes were identified, which related to the three NPT concepts most relevant to developing the tool. Theme 1 (coherence: meaning and sense making by participants) explored participants' understanding of prescribing safety, medication harm and risk, which is based on experience. Patients want as much information as possible about their medications and risk, but doctors find it difficult to communicate that information. Theme 2 related to the NPT concept of cognitive participation (commitment and engagement by participants) explored what participants thought about a prescribing decision support tool. Participants were cautiously optimistic, but worried about potential harm arising from its use. They also identified requirements for the tool and features to avoid. Theme 3 describes the collective action required for successful implementation of the tool; namely, culturally safe and trustworthy doctor-patient relationships.

CONCLUSION

Patients and general practitioners provided different perspectives when prospectively evaluating the proposed risk assessment and communication tool. This co-design research identified important pre-requisites for the tool and features to avoid and novel ideas for the proposed tool. Overall participants supported the development of the proposed risk assessment and communication tool, but identified the important role that doctor-patient relationships would play to ensure successful implementation. The use of Māori and Pacific languages in the proposed tool may enhance engagement and understanding.

Towards equity: a qualitative exploration of the implementation and impact of a digital educational intervention for pharmacy professionals in England

BACKGROUND

Patients belonging to marginalised (medically under-served) groups experience problems with medicines (i.e. non-adherence, side effects) and poorer health outcomes largely due to inequitable access to healthcare (arising from poor governance, cultural exclusion etc.). In order to promote service equity and outcomes for patients, the focus of this paper is to explore the implementation and impact of a new co-produced digital educational intervention on one National Health Service (NHS) funded community pharmacy medicines management service.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with a total of 32 participants. This included a purposive sample of 22 community pharmacy professionals, (16 pharmacists and 6 pharmacy support staff) all who offered the medicine management service. In order to obtain a fuller picture of the barriers to learning, five professionals who were unable to complete the learning were also included. Ten patients (from a marginalised group) who had received the service (as a result of the digital educational intervention) were also interviewed. Drawing on an interpretative analysis, Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as a theoretical framework.

RESULTS

Three themes are explored. The first is how the digital learning intervention was implemented and applied. Despite being well received, pharmacists found it challenging completing and cascading the learning due to organisational constraints (e.g. lack of time, workload). Using the four NPT constructs (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring) the second theme exposes the impact of the learning and the organisational process of 'normalisation'. Professional reflective accounts revealed instances where inequitable access to health services were evident. Those completing the intervention felt more aware, capable and better equipped to engage with the needs of patients who were from a marginalised group. Operationally there was minimal structural change in service delivery constraining translation of learning to practice. The impact on patients, explored in our final theme, revealed that they experience significant disadvantage and problems with their medicines. The medication review was welcomed and the discussion with the pharmacist was helpful in addressing their medicine-related concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

The co-produced digital educational intervention increases pharmacy professionals' awareness and motivation to engage with marginalised groups. However structural barriers often hindered translation into practice. Patients reported significant health and medicine challenges that were going unnoticed. They welcomed the additional support the medication review offered. Policy makers and employers should better enable and facilitate ways for pharmacy professionals to better engage with marginalised groups. The impact of the educational intervention on patients' health and medicines management could be substantial if supported and promoted effectively.