Using Participatory Implementation Science to Advance Health Equity

Participatory approaches to implementation science (IS) offer an inclusive, collaborative, and iterative perspective on implementing and sustaining evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to advance health equity. This review provides guidance on the principles and practice of participatory IS, which enables academic researchers, community members, implementers, and other actors to collaboratively integrate practice-, community-, and research-based evidence into public health and health care services. With a foundational focus on supporting academics in coproducing knowledge and action, participatory IS seeks to improve health, reduce inequity, and create transformational change. The three main sections of this review provide (a) a rationale for participatory approaches to research in implementation science, (b) a framework for integrating participatory approaches in research utilizing IS theory and methods, and (c) critical considerations for optimizing the practice and impact of participatory IS. Ultimately, participatory approaches can move IS activities beyond efforts to make EBIs work within harmful systems toward transformative solutions that reshape these systems to center equity. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Public Health, Volume 45 is April 2024. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

What Touched Your Heart? Collaborative Story Analysis Emerging From an Apsáalooke Cultural Context

Community-based participatory research and decolonizing research share some recommendations for best practices for conducting research. One commonality is partnering on all stages of research; co-developing methods of data analysis is one stage with a deficit of partnering examples. We present a novel community-based and developed method for analyzing qualitative data within an Indigenous health study and explain incompatibilities of existing methods for our purposes and community needs. We describe how we explored available literature, received counsel from community Elders and experts in the field, and collaboratively developed a data analysis method consonant with community values. The method of analysis, in which interview/story remained intact, team members received story, made meaning through discussion, and generated a conceptual framework to inform intervention development, is detailed. We offer the development process and method as an example for researchers working with communities who want to keep stories intact during qualitative data analysis.

Evaluating community-based participatory research to improve community-partnered science and community health

BACKGROUND

Since 2007, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) Policy Research Center (PRC) has partnered with the Universities of New Mexico and Washington to study the science of community-based participatory research (CBPR). Our goal is to identify facilitators and barriers to effective community-academic partnerships in American Indian and other communities, which face health disparities.

OBJECTIVES

We have described herein the scientific design of our National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded study (2009-2013) and lessons learned by having a strong community partner leading the research efforts.

METHODS

The research team is implementing a mixed-methods study involving a survey of principal investigators (PIs) and partners across the nation and in-depth case studies of CBPR projects.

RESULTS

We present preliminary findings on methods and measures for community-engaged research and eight lessons learned thus far regarding partnership evaluation, advisory councils, historical trust, research capacity development of community partner, advocacy, honoring each other, messaging, and funding.

CONCLUSIONS

Study methodologies and lessons learned can help community-academic research partnerships translate research in communities.

Invasive line placement in critically ill patients: do hemostatic defects matter?

BACKGROUND

Blood components are often given prophylactically before the placement of invasive lines in patients with coagulation defects. Little, however, is known about the epidemiology of defects in these patients. The purpose of this study is to ascertain what proportion of intensive care patients who receive invasive lines have hemostatic defects, what actions are taken by physicians to correct these abnormalities before invasive line insertion, and what the incidence is of bleeding complications after invasive line placement.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Charts were retrospectively reviewed for 490 intensive care patients in whom 938 arterial, pulmonary artery, and central venous lines were placed.

RESULTS

At least one defect in hemostasis was documented for 388 patients (41%) before line placement, with 253 (27%) of these patients evidencing severe abnormalities. Seventeen percent of patients had no preprocedure laboratory evaluation. Trauma patients showed the highest numbers of abnormalities in hemostatic testing, but medical patients had more-severe defects. The occurrence of isolated abnormal laboratory values did not predict bleeding, but a score derived from a consideration of multiple defects did. Correction of the abnormalities was attempted in 37 percent of patients with hemostatic defects. Sixteen patients had bleeding complications, but only two had complications that were life-threatening. None of the complications were fatal.

CONCLUSION

Invasive lines are used frequently in patients with hemostatic defects, often without any attempt to correct the abnormalities. Nevertheless, rates of hemorrhage are low and appear to be closely related to the level of experience of the physician rather than to defects in hemostasis. These findings suggest that the use of blood components for preprocedure correction of hemostatic defects is not necessary, except in those patients who have the most severe hemostatic abnormalities.