Implementation Research as Applied Science: Bridging the Research to Practice Gap

Incorporating Black women’s perspectives into long-acting reversible contraception implementation

Objective

To study urban, predominantly Black women’s expressed opinions and beliefs related to the use of contraceptives to better inform implementation strategies designed to increase the use of highly effective contraceptives among minoritized and low-income women.

Design

Focus group interviews with women, in conjunction with a community-based organization providing programs for underserved women with a mission of improved women and infant health.

Setting

Focus groups were conducted, and women were recruited from clinical sites in predominantly African American urban neighborhoods in a southeastern US city.

Patient(s)

Self-identified 18–35-year-old women recruited from clinical sites in the urban core of the city with an 80% African American population.

Intervention(s)

No interventions tested.

Main Outcome Measure(s)

Black women’s opinions and concerns about contraception.

Results

Key insights from the focus group results for healthcare providers include the following: the importance of framing discussions with patients within the context of the patients’ goals; need to acknowledge and respect the support systems that women rely on for child birthing and childcare; recognition of the clinician’s role as a trusted and respected source of information; and need to understand and be prepared to address much of the inaccurate and misleading information that can interfere with the patients’ optimal choices for contraception.

Conclusions

A critical component for applying the implementation science theory to increase the use of evidence-based practices, such as implementation of highly effective contraceptives, requires understanding women’s perspectives of the factors influencing their decisions to use highly effective contraceptives. This study provides important insights into the following: the potential barriers inherent in minoritized women’s concerns about contraceptives and how these insights can inform implementation strategies such as patient-centered counseling and education to overcome those barriers.

Comparative study of different SES neighborhood clinics for health literacy and internet access

Background

As healthcare services are increasingly dependent on patient utilization of technology to effectively deliver services, the digital divide has the potential to exacerbate health disparities if health literacy and internet access present formidable barriers to patient use of technology.

Methods

We examined the differences in health literacy and internet access between lower and upper SES neighborhood primary-care clinics in Northeast Florida. The REALM-SF for health literacy was used to assess health literacy and census survey questions were used to assess internet and technology access, during the Fall, 2020. The clinics were affiliated with a safety-net hospital in a major city in Southeastern U.S.

Results

Analysis of key demographic data confirmed that the responding patients from economically disadvantaged neighborhood clinics resided in economically disadvantaged zip codes (307 responding patients lived in lower SES neighborhoods) and did have lower education levels (3% of the patients from Upper SES clinics had 11 grade or lower education, compared to 21%–29% of patients from Lower SES clinics). Patient health literacy significantly differed between clinics located in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods and clinics located in more affluent neighborhoods, with Upper SES clinics being 2.4 times more likely to have 9th grade or higher reading level. Access to internet technology was also higher in the Upper SES clinics, with 59% of respondents from Upper SES clinics versus 32%–40% from Lower SES clinics owning a computer or an IPAD.

Conclusion

Results of this study have important implications for patient-engaged use of digital technology for health. Healthcare and public health clinics should be aware of the difference in health literacy and internet access when implementing technology-based services, so that advances in medicine, including precision medicine and telehealth, can be disseminated and implemented with broad populations, including disadvantaged groups.

Is a nudge all we need to promote deliberate clinical inertia and thoughtful clinical decision making?

Deliberate clinical inertia is the art of doing nothing as a positive response. Individual clinicians can promote deliberate clinical inertia through teaching, re-framing the act of 'doing nothing' as 'doing something' and engaging in shared decision making. Behaviour change on a larger scale requires a systematic approach. Nudging is a subtle change to the decision-making context to prompt specific choices. A nudge unit is a team of relevant professionals who engage with various multidisciplinary teams within a health service who help test and implement nudge interventions in a clinical environment. A nudge unit could be used to design environments to prompt clinicians to re-think before ordering unnecessary tests or treatments. Nudge units could improve knowledge translation, support continuous quality improvement and help build a learning health system. They could also boost collaboration and empower staff to evaluate their workplace decision-making frameworks.