Weaving Equity into the Fabric of Medical Research

Health Disparities, Clinical Trials, and the Digital Divide

In the past few years, there have been rapid advances in technology and the use of digital tools in health care and clinical research. Although these innovations have immense potential to improve health care delivery and outcomes, there are genuine concerns related to inadvertent widening of the digital gap consequentially exacerbating health disparities. As such, it is important that we critically evaluate the impact of expansive digital transformation in medicine and clinical research on health equity. For digital solutions to truly improve the landscape of health care and clinical trial participation for all persons in an equitable way, targeted interventions to address historic injustices, structural racism, and social and digital determinants of health are essential. The urgent need to focus on interventions to promote health equity was made abundantly clear with the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, which magnified long-standing social and racial health disparities. Novel digital technologies present a unique opportunity to embed equity ideals into the ecosystem of health care and clinical research. In this review, we examine racial and ethnic diversity in clinical trials, historic instances of unethical research practices in biomedical research and its impact on clinical trial participation, and the digital divide in health care and clinical research, and we propose suggestions to achieve digital health equity in clinical trials. We also highlight key digital health opportunities in cardiovascular medicine and dermatology as exemplars, and we offer future directions for development and adoption of patient-centric interventions aimed at narrowing the digital divide and mitigating health inequities.

Protocol for a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to increase supplemental breast MRI screening among patients with extremely dense breasts

BACKGROUND

Increased breast density augments breast cancer risk and reduces mammography sensitivity. Supplemental breast MRI screening can significantly increase cancer detection among women with dense breasts. However, few women undergo this exam, and screening is consistently lower among racially minoritized populations. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics ("nudges") can promote evidence-based practices by improving clinician decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. Nudges directed toward clinicians and patients may facilitate the implementation of supplemental breast MRI.

METHODS

Approximately 1600 patients identified as having extremely dense breasts after non-actionable mammograms, along with about 1100 clinicians involved with their care at 32 primary care or OB/GYN clinics across a racially diverse academically based health system, will be enrolled. A 2 × 2 randomized pragmatic trial will test nudges to patients, clinicians, both, or neither to promote supplemental breast MRI screening. Before implementation, rapid cycle approaches informed by clinician and patient experiences and behavioral economics and health equity frameworks guided nudge design. Clinicians will be clustered into clinic groups based on existing administrative departments and care patterns, and these clinic groups will be randomized to have the nudge activated at different times per a stepped wedge design. Clinicians will receive nudges integrated into the routine mammographic report or sent through electronic health record (EHR) in-basket messaging once their clinic group (i.e., wedge) is randomized to receive the intervention. Independently, patients will be randomized to receive text message nudges or not. The primary outcome will be defined as ordering or scheduling supplemental breast MRI. Secondary outcomes include MRI completion, cancer detection rates, and false-positive rates. Patient sociodemographic information and clinic-level variables will be examined as moderators of nudge effectiveness. Qualitative interviews conducted at the trial's conclusion will examine barriers and facilitators to implementation.

DISCUSSION

This study will add to the growing literature on the effectiveness of behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies to promote evidence-based interventions. The design will facilitate testing the relative effects of nudges to patients and clinicians and the effects of moderators of nudge effectiveness, including key indicators of health disparities. The results may inform the introduction of low-cost, scalable implementation strategies to promote early breast cancer detection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05787249. Registered on March 28, 2023.

Disparities in emergency department and urgent care opioid prescribing before and after randomized clinician feedback interventions

OBJECTIVES

Racial and ethnic minorities receive opioid prescriptions at lower rates and dosages than White patients. Though opioid stewardship interventions can improve or exacerbate these disparities, there is little evidence about these effects. We conducted a secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized controlled trial conducted among 438 clinicians from 21 emergency departments and 27 urgent care clinics. Our objective was to determine whether randomly allocated opioid stewardship clinician feedback interventions that were designed to reduce opioid prescriptions had unintended effects on disparities in prescribing by patient race and ethnicity.

METHODS

The primary outcome was likelihood of receiving a low-pill prescription (low ≤10 pills, medium 11-19 pills, high ≥20 pills). Generalized mixed-effects models were used to determine patient characteristics associated with low-pill prescriptions during the baseline period. These models were then used to determine whether receipt of a low-pill prescription varied by patient race or ethnicity during the intervention period between usual care and three opioid stewardship interventions: (1) individual audit feedback, (2) peer comparison feedback, and (3) combined (individual audit + peer comparison) feedback.

RESULTS

Compared with White patients, Black patients were more likely to receive a low-pill prescription during the baseline (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.31, p = 0.002) and intervention (adjusted OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.07-1.91, p = 0.015). While combined feedback was associated with an overall increase in low-pill prescriptions as intended (adjusted OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.28-2.78, p = 0.001), there were no significant differences in treatment effects of any of the interventions by patient race and ethnicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined individual audit and peer comparison feedback was associated with fewer opioid pills per prescription equally by patient race and ethnicity. However, the intervention did not significantly close the baseline disparity in prescribing by race.

Implicit bias instruction across disciplines related to the social determinants of health: a scoping review

One criticism of published curricula addressing implicit bias is that few achieve skill development in implicit bias recognition and management (IBRM). To inform the development of skills-based curricula addressing IBRM, we conducted a scoping review of the literature inquiring, "What interventions exist focused on IBRM in professions related to social determinants of health: education, law, social work, and the health professions inclusive of nursing, allied health professions, and medicine?"Authors searched eight databases for articles published from 2000 to 2020. Included studies: (1) described interventions related to implicit bias; and (2) addressed knowledge, attitude and/or skills as outcomes. Excluded were interventions solely focused on reducing/neutralizing implicit bias. Article review for inclusion and data charting occurred independently and in duplicate. Investigators compared characteristics across studies; data charting focused on educational and assessment strategies. Fifty-one full-text articles for data charting and synthesis, with more than 6568 learners, were selected. Educational strategies included provocative/engagement triggers, the Implicit Association Test, reflection and discussion, and various active learning strategies. Most assessments were self-report, with fewer objective measures. Eighteen funded studies utilized federal, foundation, institutional, and private sources. This review adds to the literature by providing tangible examples of curricula to complement existing frameworks, and identifying opportunities for further research in innovative skills-based instruction, learner assessment, and development and validation of outcome metrics. Continued research addressing IBRM would enable learners to develop and practice skills to recognize and manage their implicit biases during clinical encounters, thereby advancing the goal of improved, equitable patient outcomes.

Conceptualizing the Carrying Function of Community Advisory Boards

Community Advisory Boards (CABs) often, “carry” important ideas and concepts for the larger organization of which they are a part. The word “carry” in this context, means that a person or group expresses verbal and nonverbal messages that inform others of what the institution acknowledges, and also what it cannot bear to feel or talk about. These expressions may include attitudes and expectations, values, risks, or disowned features and qualities. A group can contain, “carry,” and express formal, informal, and unconscious issues for a department or system. In this article, we situate our theoretical underpinning of this carrying function by relying on a number of literatures: identified patient, splitting and projection, parallel process, and container and contained. Specifying and examining the dynamics of what CABs carry for an institution can prevent common pitfalls for these groups, such as mistrust, feelings of disrespect, lack of productivity, and thwarted expectations.

Speeding implementation in cancer: The National Cancer Institute's Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control

The National Cancer Institute's Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) Network represents a large-scale initiative to create an infrastructure to support and enable the efficient, effective, and equitable translation of approaches and evidence-based treatments to reduce cancer risk and improve outcomes. This Cancer MoonshotSM-funded ISC3 Network consists of 7 P50 Centers that support and advance the rapid development, testing, and refinement of innovative approaches to implement a range of evidence-based cancer control interventions. The Centers were designed to have research-practice partnerships at their core and to create the opportunity for a series of pilot studies that could explore new and sometimes risky ideas and embed in their infrastructure a 2-way engagement and collaboration essential to stimulating lasting change. ISC3 also seeks to enhance capacity of researchers, practitioners, and communities to apply implementation science approaches, methods, and measures. The Organizing Framework that guides the work of ISC3 highlights a collective set of 3 core areas of collaboration within and among Centers, including to 1) assess and incorporate dynamic, multilevel context; 2) develop and conduct rapid and responsive pilot and methods studies; and 3) build capacity for knowledge development and exchange. Core operating principles that undergird the Framework include open collaboration, consideration of the dynamic context, and engagement of multiple implementation partners to advance pragmatic methods and health equity and facilitate leadership and capacity building across implementation science and cancer control.