Integrating a focus on health equity in implementation science: Case examples from the national cancer institute's implementation science in cancer control centers (ISC3) network.

Background: A Health Equity Task Force (HETF) of members from seven Centers funded by the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Implementation Science in Cancer Control Centers (ISC3) network sought to identify case examples of how Centers were applying a focus on health equity in implementation science to inform future research and capacity-building efforts. Methods: HETF members at each ISC3 collected information on how health equity was conceptualized, operationalized, and addressed in initial research and capacity-building efforts across the seven ISC3 Centers funded in 2019-2020. Each Center completed a questionnaire assessing five health equity domains central to implementation science (e.g., community engagement; implementation science theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs); and engaging underrepresented scholars). Data generated illustrative examples from these five domains. Results: Centers reported a range of approaches focusing on health equity in implementation research and capacity-building efforts, including (1) engaging diverse community partners/settings in making decisions about research priorities and projects; (2) applying health equity within a single TMF applied across projects or various TMFs used in specific projects; (3) evaluating health equity in operationalizing and measuring health and implementation outcomes; (4) building capacity for health equity-focused implementation science among trainees, early career scholars, and partnering organizations; and (5) leveraging varying levels of institutional resources and efforts to engage, include, and support underrepresented scholars. Conclusions: Examples of approaches to integrating health equity across the ISC3 network can inform other investigators and centers' efforts to build capacity and infrastructure to support growth and expansion of health equity-focused implementation science.

Understanding Health Equity in Public Health Practice in the United States.

CONTEXT: Understanding the extent to which equity-focused work is occurring in public health departments (eg, in chronic disease programs) can identify areas of success and what is needed to move the needle on health equity. OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to characterize the patterns and correlates of equity-related practices in US state and territorial public health practice. DESIGN: The design was a multimethod (quantitative and qualitative), cross-sectional study. SETTING: The setting included US state and territorial public health departments. PARTICIPANTS: Chronic disease prevention practitioners (N = 600) completed self-report surveys in July 2022 through August 2022 (analyzed in September 2022 through December 2022). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Health equity data were obtained across 4 domains: (1) staff skills, (2) work unit practices, (3) organizational priorities and values, and (4) partnerships and networks. RESULTS: There was a wide range in self-reported performance across the health equity variables. The highest values (those agreeing and strongly agreeing) were related to staff skills (eg, the ability to describe the causes of inequities [82%]). Low agreement was reported for multiple items, indicating the lack of systems for tracking progress on health equity (32%), the lack of hiring of staff members who represent disadvantaged communities (33%), and limited use of principles for community engagement (eg, sharing decision-making authority with partners [34%]). Qualitative data provided tangible examples showing how practitioners and their agencies are turning an array of health equity concepts into actions. CONCLUSIONS: There is urgency in addressing health equity and our data suggest considerable room for enhancing health equity practices in state and territorial public health. To support these activities, our findings provide some of the first information on areas of progress, gaps in practice, and where to target technical assistance, capacity building efforts, and accreditation planning.

Understanding Misimplementation in U.S. State Health Departments: An Agent-Based Model.

INTRODUCTION: The research goal of this study is to explore why misimplementation occurs in public health agencies and how it can be reduced. Misimplementation is ending effective activities prematurely or continuing ineffective ones, which contributes to wasted resources and suboptimal health outcomes. METHODS: The study team created an agent-based model that represents how information flow, filtered through organizational structure, capacity, culture, and leadership priorities, shapes continuation decisions. This agent-based model used survey data and interviews with state health department personnel across the U.S. between 2014 and 2020; model design and analyses were conducted with substantial input from stakeholders between 2019 and 2021. The model was used experimentally to identify potential approaches for reducing misimplementation. RESULTS: Simulations showed that increasing either organizational evidence-based decision-making capacity or information sharing could reduce misimplementation. Shifting leadership priorities to emphasize effectiveness resulted in the largest reduction, whereas organizational restructuring did not reduce misimplementation. CONCLUSIONS: The model identifies for the first time a specific set of factors and dynamic pathways most likely driving misimplementation and suggests a number of actionable strategies for reducing it. Priorities for training the public health workforce include evidence-based decision making and effective communication. Organizations will also benefit from an intentional shift in leadership decision-making processes. On the basis of this initial, successful application of agent-based model to misimplementation, this work provides a framework for further analyses.

Practices Among Local Public Health Agencies to Support Evidence-Based Decision Making: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based decision making (EBDM) capacity in local public health departments is foundational to meeting both organizational and individual competencies and fulfilling expanded roles. In addition to on-the-job training, organizational supports are needed to prepare staff; yet, less is known in this area. This qualitative study explores supportive management practices instituted as part of a training and technical assistance intervention. DESIGN: This qualitative study used a semistructured interview guide to elicit participants' descriptions and perceptions via key informant interviews. Verbatim transcripts were coded and thematic analyses were conducted. SETTING: Local public health departments in a US Midwestern state participated in the project. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen middle managers and staff from 4 local health departments participated in remote, audio-recorded interviews. INTERVENTION: Following delivery of a 3½-day in-person training, the study team met with health department leadership teams for department selection of supportive agency policies and procedures to revise or newly create. Periodic remote meetings included collaborative problem-solving, sharing of informational resources, and encouragement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Included management practices instituted to support EBDM and impact on day-to-day work as described by the interview participants. RESULTS: Leadership and middle management practices deemed most helpful included dedicating staff; creating specific guidelines; setting expectations; and providing trainings, resources, and guidance. Health departments with a preexisting supportive organizational culture and climat e were able to move more quickly and fully to integrate supportive management practices. Workforce development included creation of locally tailored overviews for all staff members and onboarding of new staff. Staff wanted additional hands-on skill-building trainings. Several worked with partners to incorporate evidence-based processes into community health improvement plans. CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing on-the-job experiential learning is needed to integrate EBDM principles into day-to-day public health practice. Management practices established by leadership teams and middle managers can create supportive work environments for EBDM integration.

The Value and Impacts of Academic Public Health Departments.

The academic health department (AHD) is a partnership between an academic institution and a governmental health agency. These partnerships are meant to provide mutual benefits that include opportunities for student field placements and internships, practice-informed curriculum, and practice-based research. The term academic health department dates back only to 2000, although there are several examples of academic-practice partnerships prior to that date. In addition to AHDs that have been established over the past two decades, other forms of academic-practice engagement provide similar mutual benefits, such as prevention research centers and public health training centers. Current research on AHDs explores how these partnerships matter regarding the outputs, outcomes, and impacts of the units that comprise them. This review also considers the most recent perspectives on how AHDs have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic and how they might advance public health's efforts to address structural racism and promote health equity.