A Federally Qualified Health Center-led Ethics & Equity Framework & Workflow Checklist: An Invited Commentary in Response to a Relational Public Health Framing of FQHCs During COVID-19.

With disparate rates of morbidity and mortality among minoritized communities, COVID-19 illuminated the need for equity-informed practices in public health. Pacia et al posit FQHCs as entities that addressed inequity when others failed. This commentary further situates how FQHCs address the public health crisis of institutional racism and related health inequities every day and presents a FQHC-led Ethics and Equity Framework and Workflow Checklist to guide ethical and equitable engagement with FQHCs.

Implementation of evidence-based primary cancer prevention interventions in MA community health centers: an explanatory sequential mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: More than half of cancers could be prevented by employing evidence-based interventions (EBIs), including prevention interventions targeting nutrition, physical activity, and tobacco. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are the primary source of patient care for over 30 million Americans - making them an optimal setting for ensuring evidence-based prevention that advances health equity. The aims of this study are to (1) determine the degree to which primary cancer prevention EBIs are being implemented within Massachusetts FQHCs and (2) describe how these EBIs are implemented internally and via community partnerships. METHODS: We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design to assess the implementation of cancer prevention EBIs. First, we collected 34 quantitative surveys from staff at 16 FQHCs across Massachusetts to determine the frequency of EBI implementation. We followed up with 12 qualitative one-on-one interviews among a sample of staff to understand how the EBIs selected on the survey were implemented. Exploration of contextual influences on implementation and use of partnerships was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Quantitative data were summarized descriptively, and qualitative analyses used reflexive, thematic approaches, beginning deductively with codes from CFIR, then inductively coding additional categories. RESULTS: All FQHCs indicated they offered clinic-based tobacco interventions, such as clinician-delivered screening practices and prescription of tobacco cessation medications. Quitline interventions and some diet/physical activity EBIs were available at all FQHCs, but staff perceptions of penetration were low. Only 38% of FQHCs offered group tobacco cessation counseling and 63% referred patients to mobile phone-based cessation interventions. We found multilevel factors influenced implementation across intervention types - including the complexity of intervention trainings, available time and staffing, motivation of clinicians, funding, and external policies and incentives. While partnerships were described as valuable, only one FQHC reported using clinical-community linkages for primary cancer prevention EBIs. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of primary prevention EBIs in Massachusetts FQHCs is relatively high, but stable staffing and funding are required to successfully reach all eligible patients. FQHC staff are enthusiastic about the potential of community partnerships to foster improved implementation-providing training and support to build these relationships will be key to fulfilling that promise.

Implementation of evidence-based primary cancer prevention interventions in MA community health centers: an explanatory sequential mixed methods study.

Background More than half of cancers could be prevented by employing evidence-based interventions (EBIs), including prevention interventions targeting nutrition, physical activity, and tobacco. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are the primary source of patient care for over 30 million Americans - making them an optimal setting for ensuring evidence-based prevention that advances health equity. The aims of this study are to: 1) determine the degree to which primary cancer prevention EBIs are being implemented within Massachusetts FQHCs and 2) describe how these EBIs are implemented internally and via community partnerships. Methods We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design to assess the implementation of cancer prevention EBIs. First, we used quantitative surveys of FQHC staff to determine the frequency of EBI implementation. We followed up with qualitative one-on-one interviews among a sample of staff to understand how the EBIs selected on the survey were implemented. Exploration of contextual influences on implementation and use of partnerships was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Quantitative data were summarized descriptively, and qualitative analyses used reflexive, thematic approaches, beginning deductively with codes from CFIR, then inductively coding additional categories. Results All FQHCs indicated they offered clinic-based tobacco interventions, such as clinician-delivered screening practices and prescription of tobacco cessation medications. Quitline interventions and some diet/physical activity EBIs were available at all FQHCs, but staff perceptions of penetration were low. Only 38% of FQHCs offered group tobacco cessation counseling and 63% referred patients to mobile phone-based cessation interventions. We found multilevel factors influenced implementation across intervention types - including the complexity of intervention trainings, available time and staffing, motivation of clinicians, funding, and external policies and incentives. While partnerships were described as valuable, only one FQHC reported using clinical-community linkages for primary cancer prevention EBIs. Conclusions Adoption of primary prevention EBIs in Massachusetts FQHCs is relatively high, but stable staffing and funding are required to successfully reach all eligible patients. FQHC staff are enthusiastic about the potential of community partnerships to foster improved implementation - providing training and support to build these relationships will be key to fulfilling that promise.

Cross-Sectional Associations: Social Risks and Diabetes Care Quality, Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Social risks (e.g., food/transportation insecurity) can hamper type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) self-management, leading to poor outcomes. To determine the extent to which high-quality care can overcome social risks' health impacts, this study assessed the associations between reported social risks, receipt of guideline-based T2DM care, and T2DM outcomes when care is up to date among community health center patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of adults aged ≥18 years (N=73,484) seen at 186 community health centers, with T2DM and ≥1 year of observation between July 2016 and February 2020. Measures of T2DM care included up-to-date HbA1c, microalbuminuria, low-density lipoprotein screening, and foot examination, and active statin prescription when indicated. Measures of T2DM outcomes among patients with up-to-date care included blood pressure, HbA1c, and low-density lipoprotein control on or within 6‒12 months of an index encounter. Analyses were conducted in 2021. RESULTS: Individuals reporting transportation or housing insecurity were less likely to have up-to-date low-density lipoprotein screening; no other associations were seen between social risks and clinical care quality. Among individuals with up-to-date care, food insecurity was associated with lower adjusted rates of controlled HbA1c (79% vs 75%, p<0.001), and transportation insecurity was associated with lower rates of controlled HbA1c (79% vs 74%, p=0.005), blood pressure (74% vs 72%, p=0.025), and low-density lipoprotein (61% vs 57%, p=0.009) than among those with no reported need. CONCLUSIONS: Community health center patients received similar care regardless of the presence of social risks. However, even among those up to date on care, social risks were associated with worse T2DM control. Future research should identify strategies for improving HbA1c control for individuals with social risks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT03607617.

Addressing COVID-19 Testing Inequities Among Underserved Populations in Massachusetts: A Rapid Qualitative Exploration of Health Center Staff, Partner, and Resident Perceptions.

Introduction: Access to COVID-19 testing has been inequitable and misaligned with community need. However, community health centers have played a critical role in addressing the COVID-19 testing needs of historically disadvantaged communities. The aim of this paper is to explore the perceptions of COVID-19 testing barriers in six Massachusetts communities that are predominantly low income and describe how these findings were used to build tailored clinical-community strategies to addressing testing inequities. Methods: Between November 2020 and February 2021, we conducted 84 semi-structured qualitative interviews with 107 community health center staff, community partners, and residents. Resident interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Arabic. We used a 2-phase framework analysis to analyze the data, including deductive coding to facilitate rapid analysis for action and an in-depth thematic analysis applying the Social Ecological Model. Results: Through the rapid needs assessment, we developed cross-site suggestions to improve testing implementation and communications, as well as community-specific recommendations (e.g., locations for mobile testing sites and local communication channels). Upstream barriers identified in the thematic analysis included accessibility of state-run testing sites, weak social safety nets, and lack of testing supplies and staffing that contributed to long wait times. These factors hindered residents' abilities to get tested, which was further exacerbated by individual fears surrounding the testing process and limited knowledge on testing availability. Discussion: Our rapid, qualitative approach created the foundation for implementing strategies that reached underserved populations at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in winter 2021. We explored perceptions of testing barriers and created actionable summaries within 1-2 months of data collection. Partnering community health centers in Massachusetts were able to use these data to respond to the local needs of each community. This study underscores the substantial impact of upstream, structural disparities on the individual experience of COVID-19 and demonstrates the utility of shifting from a typical years' long research translation process to a rapid approach of using data for action.

COVID-19 mitigation for high-risk populations in Springfield Massachusetts USA: a health systems approach.

BACKGROUND: Numerous reports have demonstrated the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on vulnerable populations. Our purpose is to describe our health care system's response to this impact. METHODS: We convened a Workgroup with the goal to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on the most medically vulnerable people in Springfield, Massachusetts, USA, particularly those with significant social needs. We did this through (1) identifying vulnerable patients in high-need geographic areas, (2) developing and implementing a needs assessment/outreach tool tailored to meet cultural, linguistic and religious backgrounds, (3) surveying pharmacies for access to medication delivery, (4) gathering information about sources of food delivery, groceries and/or prepared food, (5) gathering information about means of travel, and (6) assessing need for testing. We then combined these six elements into a patient-oriented branch and a community outreach/engagement branch. CONCLUSIONS: Our highly intentional and methodical approach to patient and community outreach with a strong geographic component has led to fruitful efforts in COVID-19 mitigation. Our patient-level outreach engages our health centers' clinical teams, particularly community health workers, and is providing the direct benefit of material and service resources for our at-risk patients and their families. Our community efforts leveraged existing relationships and created new partnerships that continue to inform us-healthcare entities, healthcare employees, and clinical teams-so that we can grow and learn in order to authentically build trust and engagement.

Breast self-examination beliefs and practices, ethnicity, and health literacy: Implications for health education to reduce disparities.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to quantitatively and qualitatively examine breast cancer screening practices, including breast self-examination (BSE), and health literacy among patients with chronic disease. DESIGN: A prospective, multi-method study conducted with a targeted purposive sample of 297 patients with diabetes and/or hypertension from four ethnic groups (Latino, Vietnamese, African American, White-American) at an urban community health center. SETTING: A federally qualified health center in Western Massachusetts. METHODS: In our four-year study, 297 participants completed cancer knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and screening utilization scales and measures of health literacy. In addition to survey data collection, we conducted in-depth interviews, focus groups, home visits, and chronic disease diaries (n=71). RESULTS: In focus groups, African American, Vietnamese and Latina participants offered interviewers an unprompted demonstration of BSE, reported regular BSE use at particular times of the month, and shared positive feelings about the screening method. In a sample where approximately 93% of women have had a mammogram, many also had performed BSE (85.2%). Women with adequate health literacy were more likely than those with inadequate health literacy to rely on it. Despite being positively inclined toward BSE, Vietnamese women, who had the lowest health literacy scores in our sample, were less likely to perform BSE regularly. CONCLUSIONS: BSE seemed to be an appealing self-care practice for many women in our study, but we conclude that proper BSE practices may not be reinforced equally across ethnic groups and among patients with low health literacy.

Chronic disease self-management and health literacy in four ethnic groups.

Research from several fields has explored health literacy as a multidimensional construct. The authors' multimethod study, "The Impact of Cultural Differences on Health Literacy and Chronic Disease Outcomes," assessed health literacy and chronic disease self-management among 296 patients from four ethnic groups (Vietnamese, African American, White, Latino) at a Massachusetts community health center between 2006 and 2010. Health literacy was assessed using the short form of the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA), the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM), and the Short Assessment of Health Literacy for Spanish-speaking Adults (SAHLSA) measures. Qualitative research methods, including in-depth interviews (n = 34), home visits (n = 12), chronic disease diaries (n = 15), and focus groups (n = 47), were completed with a subset of participants. Qualitative interviews indicated a wide range of interpretations of S-TOFHLA questions in which participants substituted their own illness or health care experiences for the abstract examples offered in the instrument, at times leading to incorrect responses. Situating these responses in a broader social and cultural context, this article describes examples of the wide range of chronic disease self-management abilities among participants with limited education and/or low health literacy. It also discusses the culturally variable health beliefs identified among participants interviewed that may play important roles in their chronic disease self-management practices.

Consistency in attitudes across cancer screenings in medically underserved minority populations.

UNLABELLED: While a wide range of behavioral and psychosocial literature explores attitudes and beliefs towards cancer screenings, fewer studies examine attitudes across cancer screening types. We draw on quantitative and qualitative findings from a 4-year prospective study based at a community health center serving diverse, low-income patients. Methods included self-report surveys (n = 297), medical chart abstraction, and several qualitative methods with a subsample of participants. Participants included white, African-American, Vietnamese, and Latino patients who were diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, or both. Patients' attitudes (both positive and negative) towards cancer screening types were remarkably consistent across cancer screening types. These effects were stronger among men than women. Never having had a cancer screening was generally associated with more unfavorable attitudes towards all screenings. Qualitative interviews indicate the importance of information circulated through social networks in shaping attitudes towards cancer screenings. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: In a multi-method study of attitudes towards cancer screening among medically underserved patients in a primary care setting, we found that attitudes (both positive and negative) were remarkably consistent across cancer screening types.