Building the Next Generation of Implementation Science Careers to Advance Health Equity

Organizing the dissemination and implementation field: who are we, what are we doing, and how should we do it?

Two decades into its tenure as a field, dissemination and implementation (D&I) scientists have begun a process of self-reflection, illuminating a missed opportunity to bridge the gap between research and practice-one of the field's foundational objectives. In this paper, we, the authors, assert the research-to-practice gap has persisted, in part due to an inadequate characterization of roles, functions, and processes within D&I. We aim to address this issue, and the rising tension between D&I researchers and practitioners, by proposing a community-centered path forward that is grounded in equity.We identify key players within the field and characterize their unique roles using the translational science spectrum, a model originally developed in the biomedical sciences to help streamline the research-to-practice process, as a guide. We argue that the full translational science spectrum, from basic science research, or "T0," to translation to community, or "T4," readily applies within D&I and that in using this framework to clarify roles, functions, and processes within the field, we can facilitate greater collaboration and respect across the entire D&I research-to-practice continuum. We also highlight distinct opportunities (e.g., changes to D&I scientific conference structures) to increase regular communication and engagement between individuals whose work sits at different points along the D&I translational science spectrum that can accelerate our efforts to close the research-to-practice gap and achieve the field's foundational objectives.

Health Disparities Research Curricula and Training Development: Recommendations From a National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Workgroup

The national mandate to improve health equity in the United Sates is advancing. Racial and ethnic disparities in various aspects of health care have been clearly delineated, and sources of such disparities have been identified. However, implementing solution-focused interventions to eradicate such disparities, thereby achieving health equity in all US communities, has remained a daunting challenge, and no area more so, than with neurologic diseases. To assure success with bridging prominent disparities in neurologic outcomes, the pipeline of neurologic disparities researchers needs to be broadened, numbers of mid-career and senior disparities scientists sustained, partnerships with community stakeholders enhanced, incentivization of academic organizations pursued, education of all neurologic researchers conducted, and exemplary training of funding agency staff prioritized. To improve the current state of neurologic disparities, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke assembled a working group of its advisory council. (2020-2022) to examine the state of health disparity training and research. Through consensus building, we present identified gaps and recommendations to the current state of underrepresented groups in medicine in health disparity research and its training and curricula in the United States.

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.

Implementation science should give higher priority to health equity

Background

There is growing urgency to tackle issues of equity and justice in the USA and worldwide. Health equity, a framing that moves away from a deficit mindset of what society is doing poorly (disparities) to one that is positive about what society can achieve, is becoming more prominent in health research that uses implementation science approaches. Equity begins with justice—health differences often reflect societal injustices. Applying the perspectives and tools of implementation science has potential for immediate impact to improve health equity.

Main text

We propose a vision and set of action steps for making health equity a more prominent and central aim of implementation science, thus committing to conduct implementation science through equity-focused principles to achieve this vision in U.S. research and practice. We identify and discuss challenges in current health disparities approaches that do not fully consider social determinants. Implementation research challenges are outlined in three areas: limitations of the evidence base, underdeveloped measures and methods, and inadequate attention to context. To address these challenges, we offer recommendations that seek to (1) link social determinants with health outcomes, (2) build equity into all policies, (3) use equity-relevant metrics, (4) study what is already happening, (5) integrate equity into implementation models, (6) design and tailor implementation strategies, (7) connect to systems and sectors outside of health, (8) engage organizations in internal and external equity efforts, (9) build capacity for equity in implementation science, and (10) focus on equity in dissemination efforts.

Conclusions

Every project in implementation science should include an equity focus. For some studies, equity is the main goal of the project and a central feature of all aspects of the project. In other studies, equity is part of a project but not the singular focus. In these studies, we should, at a minimum, ensure that we “leave no one behind” and that existing disparities are not widened. With a stronger commitment to health equity from funders, researchers, practitioners, advocates, evaluators, and policy makers, we can harvest the rewards of the resources being invested in health-related research to eliminate disparities, resulting in health equity.

Achieving Optimal Population Cardiovascular Health Requires an Interdisciplinary Team and a Learning Healthcare System: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Population cardiovascular health, or improving cardiovascular health among patients and the population at large, requires a redoubling of primordial and primary prevention efforts as declines in cardiovascular disease mortality have decelerated over the past decade. Great potential exists for healthcare systems-based approaches to aid in reversing these trends. A learning healthcare system, in which population cardiovascular health metrics are measured, evaluated, intervened on, and re-evaluated, can serve as a model for developing the evidence base for developing, deploying, and disseminating interventions. This scientific statement on optimizing population cardiovascular health summarizes the current evidence for such an approach; reviews contemporary sources for relevant performance and clinical metrics; highlights the role of implementation science strategies; and advocates for an interdisciplinary team approach to enhance the impact of this work.

Building capacity in dissemination and implementation science: a systematic review of the academic literature on teaching and training initiatives

BACKGROUND

The field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) science has grown significantly over recent years. Alongside this, an increased demand for training in D&I from researchers and implementers has been seen. Research describing and evaluating D&I training opportunities, referred to here as 'capacity building initiatives' (CBIs), can help provide an understanding of different methods of training as well as training successes and challenges. However, to gain a more detailed understanding of the evidence-base and how D&I CBIs are being reported in publications, a field-wide examination of the academic literature is required.

METHODS

Systematic review to identify the type and range of D&I CBIs discussed and/or appraised in the academic literature. EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO were searched between January 2006 and November 2019. Articles were included if they reported on a D&I CBI that was developed by the authors (of each of the included articles) or the author's host institution. Two reviewers independently screened the articles and extracted data using a standardised form.

RESULTS

Thirty-one articles (from a total of 4181) were included. From these, 41 distinct D&I CBIs were identified which focussed on different contexts and professions, from 8 countries across the world. CBIs ranged from short courses to training institutes to being part of academic programmes. Nearly half were delivered face-face with the remainder delivered remotely or using a blended format. CBIs often stipulated specific eligibility criteria, strict application processes and/or were oversubscribed. Variabilities in the way in which the D&I CBIs were reported and/or evaluated were evident.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing the number of training opportunities, as well as broadening their reach (to a wider range of learners), would help address the recognised deficit in D&I training. Standardisation in the reporting of D&I CBIs would enable the D&I community to better understand the findings across different contexts and scientific professions so that training gaps can be identified and overcome. More detailed examination of publications on D&I CBIs as well as the wider literature on capacity building would be of significant merit to the field.