The National Heart Lung and Blood Institute Disparities Elimination through Coordinated Interventions to Prevent and Control Heart and Lung Disease Alliance

IM4Equity: an implementation science meta-framework for community-engaged partnerships to advance health equity

BACKGROUND

Implementation determinant frameworks identify factors that may impede or facilitate implementation of evidence-based innovations (EBI) in new contexts, including diverse community settings. For health equity initiatives, variations in which frameworks are used make synthesis and identification of shared determinants difficult, including equity constructs. Further, such frameworks are rarely informed by community partner input. We describe the development of an equity-centered meta-framework that centers community-engagement called IM4Equity (Crosswalk of 4 IMplementation Frameworks to advance health Equity) as part of the Disparities Elimination through Coordinated Interventions to Prevent and Control Heart and Lung Disease Risk (DECIPHeR) Alliance, comprised of seven research-community partnerships across the U.S.

METHODS

We conducted a crosswalk of determinants (domains and constructs within domains) from the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment framework; Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model; updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; and Health Equity Implementation Framework. We reviewed original source publications and resources to identify determinants from each framework, which informed a prototype figure. We obtained feedback on the figure with a user-centered design approach with DECIPHeR research teams and community partners, plus framework developers. We used thematic analysis to summarize the feedback and inform iterative development of supporting materials to guide community partner engagement in informing and applying IM4Equity (e.g., blank framework template, guidance for completing the template).

RESULTS

IM4Equity identifies shared and unique domains: intra- and extra-organizational contexts, characteristics of individuals involved in implementation, innovation characteristics, bridging factors, implementation process, and implementation phases. We identified examples of shared constructs for each domain and example factors that may improve health equity or maintain systems of oppression (e.g., structural racism). Feedback sessions identified two areas for improving the usability of IM4Equity, which we addressed in the final figure and supporting materials: 1) design and appropriateness (e.g., language) and 2) approach for integrating community partner perspectives.

CONCLUSIONS

IM4Equity highlights key overlapping determinants across existing frameworks, which can promote shared learning across health equity initiatives. IM4Equity is one of the first meta-frameworks to promote co-creation and application of an implementation framework with community partners, which may help inform more equitable implementation measures and strategies to advance health equity.

Development of a method for qualitative data integration to advance implementation science within research consortia

BACKGROUND

Methods of integrating qualitative data across diverse studies and within multi-site research consortia are less developed than those for integrating quantitative data. The development ofsuchmethods is essential to support the data exchange needed for cross-study qualitative inquiry and given the increasing emphasis on data sharing and open science. We describe methods for qualitative data integration within the National Cancer Institute's Improving the Management of symPtoms During And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium funded by the Cancer MoonshotSM. Data collection and analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Our case study highlights potential solutions for unique challenges faced when integrating qualitative data across multiple settings in a research consortium.

METHODS

The IMPACT consortium is comprised of three research centers (RCs) each conducting pragmatic trials examining the effectiveness of routine symptom management on patient-centered outcomes. After reaching consensus on use of CFIR as the common implementation determinant framework, RCs developed a semi-structured interview guide and tailored it to features of their healthcare setting and symptom management interventions. RCs conducted interviews/focus groups with healthcare system partners to examine contextual factors impacting implementation. RCs exchanged 1-2 transcripts (n = 5 total) for purposes of pilot testing the methodology.

RESULTS

Given the heterogeneity of study settings and contexts, it was challenging to simultaneously assign codes at both domain and construct levels and the process was resource intensive. Recommendations include employing a common framework for data collection and analyses from the outset, coding at domain level first and then incorporating construct codes, and centralizing processes via a coordinating center (or similar entity) and combining coded transcripts using qualitative software. We also generated an iteratively refined codebook that employed the CFIR schema and incorporated CFIR 2.0 to provide detailed guidance for coders conducting cross-study qualitative inquiry.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited guidance exists on how to support qualitative data integration, data exchange, and sharing across multiple studies. This paper describes a systematic method for employing an implementation determinant framework-guided approach to foster data integration. This methodology can be adopted by other research consortia to support qualitative data integration, cross-site qualitative inquiry, and generate improved understanding of evidence-based intervention implementation.

Research Priorities in Pediatric Asthma Morbidity: Addressing the Impacts of Systemic Racism on Children with Asthma in the United States. An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report

Background: In the United States, Black and Latino children with asthma are more likely than White children with asthma to require emergency department visits or hospitalizations because of an asthma exacerbation. Although many cite patient-level socioeconomic status and access to health care as primary drivers of disparities, there is an emerging focus on a major root cause of disparities-systemic racism. Current conceptual models of asthma disparities depict the historical and current effects of systemic racism as the foundation for unequal exposures to social determinants of health, environmental exposures, epigenetic factors, and differential healthcare access and quality. These ultimately lead to biologic changes over the life course resulting in asthma morbidity and mortality. Methods: At the 2022 American Thoracic Society International Conference, a diverse panel of experts was assembled to identify gaps and opportunities to address systemic racism in childhood asthma research. Panelists found that to examine and address the impacts of systemic racism on children with asthma, researchers and medical systems that support biomedical research will need to 1) address the current gaps in our understanding of how to conceptualize and characterize the impacts of systemic racism on child health, 2) design research studies that leverage diverse disciplines and engage the communities affected by systemic racism in identifying and designing studies to evaluate interventions that address the racialized system that contributes to disparities in asthma health outcomes, and 3) address funding mechanisms and institutional research practices that will be needed to promote antiracism practices in research and its dissemination. Results: A thorough literature review and expert opinion discussion demonstrated that there are few studies in childhood asthma that identify systemic racism as a root cause of many of the disparities seen in children with asthma. Community engagement and participation in research studies is essential to design interventions to address the racialized system in which patients and families live. Dissemination and implementation studies with an equity lens will provide the multilevel evaluations required to understand the impacts of interventions to address systemic racism and the downstream impacts. To address the impacts of systemic racism and childhood asthma, there needs to be increased training for research teams, funding for studies addressing research that evaluates the impacts of racism, funding for diverse and multidisciplinary research teams including community members, and institutional and financial support of advocating for policy changes based on study findings. Conclusions: Innovative study design, new tools to identify the impacts of systemic racism, community engagement, and improved infrastructure and funding are all needed to support research that will address impacts of systemic racism on childhood asthma outcomes.

Adaptive Designs in Implementation Science and Practice: Their Promise and the Need for Greater Understanding and Improved Communication

The promise of adaptation and adaptive designs in implementation science has been hindered by the lack of clarity and precision in defining what it means to adapt, especially regarding the distinction between adaptive study designs and adaptive implementation strategies. To ensure a common language for science and practice, authors reviewed the implementation science literature and found that the term adaptive was used to describe interventions, implementation strategies, and trial designs. To provide clarity and offer recommendations for reporting and strengthening study design, we propose a taxonomy that describes fixed versus adaptive implementation strategies and implementation trial designs. To improve impact, (a) futureimplementation studies should prespecify implementation strategy core functions that in turn can be taught to and replicated by health system/community partners, (b) funders should support exploratory studies that refine and specify implementation strategies, and (c) investigators should systematically address design requirements and ethical considerations (e.g., randomization, blinding/masking) with health system/community partners.

Engaging primary care clinicians in the selection of implementation strategies for toddler social-emotional health promotion in community health centers

BACKGROUND

Social-emotional risk for subsequent behavioral health problems can be identified at toddler age, a period where prevention has a heightened impact. This study aimed to meaningfully engage pediatric clinicians, given the emphasis on health promotion and broad reach of primary care, to prepare an Implementation Research Logic Model to guide the implementation of a screening and referral process for toddlers with elevated social-emotional risk.

METHOD

Using an adaptation of a previously published community partner engagement method, six pediatricians from community health centers (CHCs) comprised a Clinical Partner Work Group. The group was engaged in identifying determinants (barriers/facilitators), selecting and specifying strategies, strategy-determinant matching, a modified Delphi approach for strategy prioritization, and user-centered design methods. The data gathered from individual interviews, two group sessions, and a follow-up survey resulted in a completed Implementation Research Logic Model.

RESULTS

The Clinical Partner Work Group identified 16 determinants, including barriers (e.g., patient access to electronic devices) and facilitators (e.g., clinician buy-in). They then selected and specified 14 strategies, which were prioritized based on ratings of feasibility, effectiveness, and priority. The highest-rated strategies (e.g., integration of the screener into the electronic health record) provided coverage of all identified barriers and comprised the primary implementation strategy "package" to be used and tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical partners provided important context and insights for implementation strategy selection and specification to support the implementation of social-emotional risk screening and referral in pediatric primary care. The methodology described herein can improve partner engagement in implementation efforts and increase the likelihood of success. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

A Systematic Review of the State of Neurosurgical Disparities Research: Past, Present, and Future

BACKGROUND

The social determinants of health, which influence healthcare access, patient outcomes, and population-level burden of disease, contribute to health disparities experienced by marginalized patient populations. In the present study, we sought to evaluate the landscape of health disparities research within neurosurgery.

METHODS

Embase, Ovid-MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest Dissertations databases were queried for original research on health disparities regarding access to, outcomes of, and/or postoperative management after neurosurgical procedures in the United States.

RESULTS

Of 883 studies screened, 196 were included, of which 144 had a neurosurgery-affiliated author. We found a significant increase in the number of neurosurgical disparities reports beginning in 2010, with only 10 studies reported before 2010. Of the included studies, 3.1% used prospective methods and 63.8% used data from national registries. The disparities analyzed were racial/ethnic (79.6%), economic/socioeconomic (53.6%), gender (18.9%), and disabled populations (0.5%), with 40.1% analyzing multiple or intersecting disparities. Of the included reports, 96.9% were in phase 1 (detecting phase of disparities research), with a few studies in phase 2 (understanding phase), and none in phase 3 (reducing phase). The spine was the most prevalent subspecialty evaluated (34.2%), followed by neuro-oncology (19.9%), cerebrovascular (16.3%), pediatrics (10.7%), functional (9.2%), general neurosurgery (5.1%), and trauma (4.1%). Senior authors with a neurosurgical affiliation accounted for 79.2% of the reports, 93% of whom were academically affiliated.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a recent increase has occurred in neurosurgical disparities research within the past decade, most studies were limited to the detection of disparities without understanding or evaluating any interventions for a reduction in disparities. Future research in neurosurgical disparities should incorporate the latter 2 factors to reduce disparities and improve outcomes for all patients.

MiQuit: A Study Protocol to Link Low-Income Smokers to a State Tobacco Quitline

Purpose

To conduct a randomized controlled trial to compare 3 implementation strategies and the impact of facilitated referrals on linkage of Federally Qualified Health Center patients to the Illinois Tobacco Quitline (ITQL).

Methods

This study will be a hybrid type 3 implementation-effectiveness trial guided by 2 implementation science frameworks: reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance and exploration preparation implementation sustainment. We will evaluate whether sending provider messages through the patient electronic health portal increases patient linkage to the ITQL. We will (1) randomly assign all eligible patients to receive 1 of 3 messages (information about quitting, advice to quit, and advice to quit or cut down), and (2) we will offer a facilitated linkage to the ITQL. For patients who opt into a facilitated referral, we will share their contact information with the ITQL, who will contact them. Four weeks after the initial message, patients who expressed interest in services but were not reached by the ITQL will be rerandomized to 1 of 2 arms, an offer to reconnect to the ITQL or an offer to engage a peer navigator who can help them reconnect to the ITQL. We will assess the implementation strategies' reach, adoption, linkage, and sustainability with the ITQL.

Discussion

This study will provide a new cost-effective and efficient model to link low-income smokers to state tobacco quitlines. Message delivery via patient health portals has important implications for addressing other tobacco-related morbidities.

Implementation Research at NHLBI: Methodological and Design Challenges and Lessons Learned from the DECIPHeR Initiative

NHLBI funded seven projects as part of the Disparities Elimination through Coordinated Interventions to Prevent and Control Heart and Lung Disease Risk (DECIPHeR) Initiative. They were expected to collaborate with community partners to (1) employ validated theoretical or conceptual implementation research frameworks, (2) include implementation research study designs, (3) include implementation measures as primary outcomes, and (4) inform our understanding of mediators and mechanisms of action of the implementation strategy. Several projects focused on late-stage implementation strategies that optimally and sustainably delivered two or more evidence-based multilevel interventions to reduce or eliminate cardiovascular and/or pulmonary health disparities and to improve population health in high-burden communities. Projects that were successful in the three-year planning phase transitioned to a 4-year execution phase. NHLBI formed a Technical Assistance Workgroup during the planning phase to help awardees refine study aims, strengthen research designs, detail analytic plans, and to use valid sample size methods. This paper highlights methodological and study design challenges encountered during this process. Important lessons learned included (1) the need for greater emphasis on implementation outcomes, (2) the need to clearly distinguish between intervention and implementation strategies in the protocol, (3) the need to address clustering due to randomization of groups or clusters, (4) the need to address the cross-classification that results when intervention agents work across multiple units of randomization in the same arm, (5) the need to accommodate time-varying intervention effects in stepped-wedge designs, and (6) the need for data-based estimates of the parameters required for sample size estimation.

Community Engagement in Implementation Science: the Impact of Community Engagement Activities in the DECIPHeR Alliance

Background

The translation of evidence-based interventions into practice settings remains challenging. Implementation science aims to bridge the evidence-to-practice gap by understanding multilevel contexts and tailoring evidence-based interventions accordingly. Engaging community partners who possess timely, local knowledge is crucial for this process to be successful. The Disparities Elimination through Coordinated Interventions to Prevent and Control Heart and Lung Disease Risk (DECIPHeR) Alliance aims to address cardiopulmonary health disparities by engaging diverse community partners to improve the implementation of evidence-based interventions. The goal of the Community Engagement Subcommittee is to strengthen community engagement practice across DECIPHeR. This paper presents the subcommittee's "Why We Engage Communities" statement that outlines why community engagement is critical for implementation science. The paper also provides case examples of DECIPHeR community engagement activities.

Methods

To develop the "Why We Engage Communities" statement, we conducted a literature review, surveyed subcommittee members to assess the importance of community engagement in their work, and integrated community partner feedback. We synthesize the findings into three key themes and present examples of community engagement activities and their impact across DECIPHeR projects.

Results

The statement presents three themes that illustrate why community engagement increases the impact of implementation and health equity research. Community engagement (1) engages local knowledge and expertise, (2) promotes authentic relationships, and (3) builds community and researcher capacity. The statement provides a guiding framework for strengthening DECIPHeR research and enhancing community partnerships.

Conclusion

Community engagement can improve the implementation of evidence-based interventions across diverse settings, improving intervention effectiveness in underserved communities and furthering health equity.

Process of Engaging Community and Scientific Partners in the Development of the CIRCL-Chicago Study Protocol

Objectives

Hypertension affects 1 in 3 adults in the United States and disproportionately affects African Americans. Kaiser Permanente demonstrated that a "bundle" of evidence-based interventions significantly increased blood pressure control rates. This paper describes a multiyear process of developing the protocol for a trial of the Kaiser bundle for implementation in under-resourced urban communities experiencing cardiovascular health disparities during the planning phase of this biphasic award (UG3/UH3).

Methods

The protocol was developed by a collaboration of faith-based community members, representatives from community health center practice-based research networks, and academic scientists with expertise in health disparities, implementation science, community-engaged research, social care interventions, and health informatics. Scientists from the National Institutes of Health and the other grantees of the Disparities Elimination through Coordinated Interventions to Prevent and Control Heart and Lung Disease Risk (DECIPHeR) Alliance also contributed to developing our protocol.

Results

The protocol is a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation study using a parallel cluster randomized trial to test the impact of practice facilitation on implementation of the Kaiser bundle in community health centers compared with implementation without facilitation. A central strategy to the Kaiser bundle is to coordinate implementation via faith-based and other community organizations for recruitment and navigation of resources for health-related social risks.

Conclusions

The proposed research has the potential to improve identification, diagnosis, and control of blood pressure among under-resourced communities by connecting community entities and healthcare organizations in new ways. Faith-based organizations are a trusted voice in African American communities that could be instrumental for eliminating disparities.

Community and Healthcare Perspectives on Implementing Hypertension Interventions for a Multiethnic Safety-Net Population

Objective

To synthesize community and healthcare informants' perspectives on contextual considerations and tailoring recommendations for high-quality, sustainable implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for managing hypertension (HTN) in a multiethnic safety-net population.

Design

Structured focus-group discussions and semistructured qualitative interviews.

Background

High-quality, sustainable implementation of HTN-related EBPs can promote equitable care. Implementation challenges extend beyond individual patients to span multiple levels of context. Few studies have systematically engaged community and healthcare perspectives to inform the design of HTN intervention trials.

Setting

A large safety-net healthcare system.

Participants/Methods

We conducted four structured discussions with each of five race- or ethnicity-specific community action boards (CABs) to understand community members' HTN-related norms, assets, needs, and experiences across local healthcare systems. We interviewed 41 personnel with diverse roles in our partnered healthcare system to understand the system's HTN-related strengths and needs. We solicited EBP tailoring recommendations from both groups. We summarized the findings using rapid content analysis.

Results

Participants identified contextual considerations spanning seven themes: social determinants, healthcare engagement, clinical interaction, system operations, standardization, patient education, and partnerships and funding. They offered tailoring recommendations spanning nine themes: addressing complex contexts, addressing social needs, system operations, healthcare system training and resources, linguistic and cultural tailoring, behavioral engagement, relational engagement, illness-course engagement, and community partnerships.

Conclusions

Engaging community and healthcare informants can ground implementation in the policy, community, healthcare system, clinical, and interpersonal contexts surrounding diverse patients at risk for disparities. Such grounding can reframe inequitable implementation as a multilevel social problem facing communities and healthcare systems, rather than individuals.

Engaging Predominantly Black Churches in an Intervention to Improve Cardiovascular Health and Reduce Racial Inequities

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality in the United States and disproportionately impacts Black adults. Effective implementation of interventions to improve cardiovascular health in the Black community is needed to reduce health inequities. The Church-Based Health Intervention to Eliminate Health Inequalities in Cardiovascular Health (CHERISH) study is implementing interventions recommended by the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline on the primary prevention of CVD in Black communities to improve cardiovascular health and reduce health disparities. The recently completed 3-year planning phase of CHERISH has focused on engaging with the predominantly Black church community in New Orleans with the goals of informing study protocol development and recruiting churches for study participation. Community engagement approaches include convening a community advisory board (CAB), conducting qualitative and quantitative needs assessments, and hosting and attending church events. These activities have resulted in an engaged CAB that has contributed meaningfully to planning activities and the study protocol. The needs assessment found that while there are substantial barriers to cardiovascular health, such as knowledge, access to healthy foods, and safe spaces for physical activity, people are willing to make lifestyle changes and think that the proposed intervention components are feasible. Community engagement activities have resulted in the recruitment of 50 geographically and denominationally diverse predominantly Black churches willing to participate in the study (exceeding our goal of 42). Overall, a multicomponent approach to extensive community engagement has produced effective church enrollment for study participation and meaningful input on study design and implementation.

Charting the Future of Health Equity Research: Lessons Learned and Future Aspirations for NHLBI's DECIPHeR Alliance

The Disparities Elimination through Coordinated Interventions to Prevent and Control Heart and Lung Disease Risk (DECIPHeR) research program, supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), focuses on developing and testing sustainable interventions to reduce heart and lung disease disparities. This perspective piece reflects on lessons learned during the planning phase (UG3) and outlines the accomplishments of the DECIPHeR Alliance. The article emphasizes the importance of a biphasic (UG3/UH3) funding mechanism, technical assistance, and collaborative subcommittees in achieving success. As DECIPHeR enters phase 2 (UH3), the article anticipates rigorously planned studies addressing social determinants of health and emphasizes the need for effective implementation strategies and equitable research frameworks. The Alliance's contributions, such as the IM4Equity framework, offer novel approaches to community-engaged health equity and implementation science research. The article explores future opportunities, including dissemination strategies, community engagement, and collaboration with diverse partners, to maximize DECIPHeR's impact on health disparities beyond cardiovascular and pulmonary health.

Deciphering Disparities: The NHLBI Program on Disparities Elimination through Coordinated Interventions to Prevent and Control Heart and Lung Disease Risk (DECIPHeR)

Despite several ambitious national health initiatives to eliminate health disparities, spanning more than 4 decades, health disparities remain pervasive in the United States. In an attempt to bend the curve in disparities elimination, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) issued a funding opportunity on Disparities Elimination through Coordinated Interventions to Prevent and Control Heart and Lung Disease Risk (DECIPHeR) in March 2019. Seven implementation research centers and 1 research coordinating center were funded in September 2020 to plan, develop, and test effective implementation strategies for eliminating disparities in heart and lung disease risk. In the 16 articles presented in this issue of Ethnicity & Disease, the DECIPHeR Alliance investigators and their NHLBI program staff address the work accomplished in the first phase of this biphasic research endeavor. Included in the collection are an article on important lessons learned during technical assistance sessions designed to ensure scientific rigor in clinical study designs, and 2 examples of clinical study process articles. Several articles show the diversity of clinical and public health settings addressed including schools, faith-based settings, federally qualified health centers, and other safety net clinics. All strategies for eliminating disparities tackle a cardiovascular or pulmonary disease and related risk factors. In an additional article, NHLBI program staff address expectations in phase 2 of the DECIPHeR program, strategies to ensure feasibility of scaling and spreading promising strategies identified, and opportunities for translating the DECIPHeR research model to other chronic diseases for the elimination of related health disparities.

Technologic and Nontechnologic Barriers to Implementing Behavioral Health Homes in Community Mental Health Settings During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background

Persons with serious mental illnesses (SMIs) experience disparities in health care and are more likely to die from physical health conditions than the general population. Behavioral health homes are used in public sector mental health programs to deploy collaborative care to improve physical health for those with SMIs. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these programs faced new challenges in delivering care to this vulnerable group.

Purpose

To describe barriers to implementing or sustaining behavioral health homes, experienced by community mental health workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the strategies used to address these challenges.

Methods

In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted among the behavioral health workforce in Maryland and Michigan community mental health programs. Interview questions were derived from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and responses related to implementing and sustaining health homes during the pandemic were coded and themes were analyzed by using an inductive approach.

Results

Overall, 72 staff members across 21 sites in Maryland and Michigan were interviewed. Implementation barriers/strategies identified occurred across multiple CFIR domains (client, mental health system, physical health system). Interviewees discussed technologic and nontechnologic challenges as well as strategies to address technology issues. Strategies were more frequently discussed by providers when the barrier was viewed at the client level (eg, low technology literacy) versus the broader system (eg, canceled primary care visits).

Conclusions

Community mental health staff described barriers beyond technology in caring for individuals with SMIs and physical health conditions. Further research should examine how implementation strategies address both technologic and nontechnologic barriers to collaborative care.

Design of a dual randomized trial in a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study

BACKGROUND

Dual randomized controlled trials (DRCT) are type 2 hybrid studies that include two randomized trials: one testing implementation strategies and one testing an intervention. We argue that this study design offers efficiency by providing rigorous investigation of both implementation and intervention in one study and has potential to accelerate generation of the evidence needed to translate interventions that work into real-world practice. Nevertheless, studies using this design are rare in the literature.

MAIN TEXT

We construct a paradigm that breaks down the components of the DRCT and provide a step-by-step explanation of features of the design and recommendations for use. A clear distinction is made between the dual strands that test the implementation versus the intervention, and a minimum of three randomized arms is advocated. We suggest an active treatment arm that includes both the implementation strategy and intervention that are hypothesized to be superior. We suggest two comparison/control arms: one to test the implementation strategy and the second to test the intervention. Further, we recommend selection criteria for the two control arms that place emphasis on maximizing the utility of the study design to advance public health practice.

CONCLUSIONS

On the surface, the design of a DRCT can appear simple, but actual application is complex. We believe it is that complexity that has limited its use in the literature. We hope that this paper will give both implementation scientists and trialists who are not familiar with implementation science a better understanding of the DRCT design and encouragement to use it.

Eliminating hypertension disparities in U.S. non-Hispanic black adults: current and emerging interventions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hypertension in non-Hispanic black (NHB) adults in the United States has an earlier onset, higher prevalence, and increased severity compared with other racial/ethnic populations. Uncontrolled hypertension is responsible for the increased burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality and decreased longevity in NHB adults. Unfortunately, eliminating the persistent hypertension-associated disparities and the white/black mortality gap, worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic, has been challenging. Overcoming the social determinants of health (SDOH), implementing therapeutic lifestyle changes (TLC), and using intensive guideline-directed medical therapy are required. Moreover, novel approaches, including community-based interventions and self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) monitoring, may mitigate U.S. disparities in hypertension.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this review, we discuss recent data regarding the U.S. NHB adult disparate hypertension control and CVD morbidity and mortality. We note current approaches to address disparities, such as TLC, evidence-based pharmacotherapy, community-based interventions and SMBP. Finally, we explore future research and initiatives to seek hypertension-related health equity.

SUMMARY

In the final analysis, longstanding, unacceptable hypertension and CVD morbidity and mortality in U.S. NHB adults must be addressed. Appropriate TLC and evidence-based pharmacotherapy benefit all populations, especially NHB adults. Ultimately, novel community-based interventions and SMBP may help overcome the SDOH that cause hypertension disparities.

Influence of neighborhood-level social determinants of health on a heart-healthy lifestyle among Black church members: A mixed-methods study

Background

Few church-based health interventions have evaluated the influence of neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDOH) on adopting heart-healthy lifestyles; none has occurred in Louisiana. We aimed to characterize neighborhood-level SDOH that may influence the ability to adopt a heart-healthy lifestyle among Black community church members in New Orleans, LA.

Methods

This mixed methods study used quantitative data (surveys) and qualitative data (focus groups) to explore SDOH at the neighborhood- and church-area- level, including factors related to the physical (e.g., walkability, accessibility to recreational facilities) and social (e.g., social cohesion, perceived safety) environments. Descriptive analyses were conducted for quantitative data. Qualitative data were coded and analyzed using grounded theory and thematic analysis.

Results

Among survey respondents (n = 302, 77 % female, 99 % Black), most reported having walkable neighborhood sidewalks and high neighborhood social cohesion. Two-thirds did not feel violence was a problem in their neighborhood and felt safe walking, day, or night. Focus group participants (n = 27, 74 % female, 100 % Black) reported facilitators to heart-healthy living, including social support promoting physical activity, intentionality in growing, buying, and preparing produce, and the neighborhood-built environment. Reported barriers included: crime, the COVID-19 pandemic, individual-level factors limiting physical activity, and city-wide disparities influencing health. Participants discussed strategies to promote healthy living, centered around the theme of establishing and rebuilding community relationships.

Conclusions

Future health interventions aimed at improving cardiovascular outcomes among church communities should continue to inquire about neighborhood-level SDOH and tailor interventions, as appropriate, to address barriers and leverage facilitators within these communities.

Applying dissemination and implementation research methods to translate a school-based asthma program

Our school-based asthma program has reduced asthma exacerbations for youth with health disparities in the Denver metropolitan area, due partly to addressing social determinants of health, such as access to health care and medications. Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science approaches accelerate the translation of evidence-based programs into routine practice. D&I methods are being applied more commonly to improve health equity. The purpose of this publication was to give an overview of D&I research methods, using our school-based asthma program as an example. To successfully scale out our program across the state of Colorado, we are applying a D&I framework that guides the adaptation of our existing implementation approach to better meet our stakeholders' local context-the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment framework. In a pragmatic trial design, we will evaluate the outcomes of implementing the program across 5 Colorado regions, with attention to health equity, using a second commonly used D&I framework-Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance. Our central hypothesis is that our program will have broad and equitable reach to eligible students (primary outcome) and will reduce asthma attacks and symptoms. This D&I approach accelerates dissemination of our program and is an applicable process for translating other effective allergy/asthma programs to address asthma and allergy-related disparities.