Recruitment tools for transgender and gender diverse veterans in health care research.

Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) veterans in the Veterans Health Administration experience health and health care disparities, and research with this population is needed to improve gender-affirming care in Veterans Health Administration. However, TGD veterans may experience hesitancy to participate in research. We must address barriers to participation through feasible and acceptable methods. Opt-out letters are an effective tool used to recruit veterans in mental health research. The present study examined the feasibility and acceptability of opt-out letters modified for TGD veterans. Opt-out letters were sent to 54 potential TGD participants at three sites. The letters stated the research team would begin contacting veterans by phone in 2 weeks if they did not opt out of being contacted. Feasibility was measured through response rate. Acceptability was assessed through qualitative template analysis of interview data. Of the 54 potential participants, two opted out, three letters were undeliverable, and eight veterans called to opt in. Veterans reported that they found the letters to be clear and useful. The responses to the opt-out letters resulted in completing recruitment for two of the three sites. The research team then called the veterans who received the letter at the third site (three veterans) and recruited one additional veteran, for a total of nine TGD veterans. Opt-out letters may be a helpful tool to recruit TGD veterans to participate in research. Although these letters were designed to opt out, 89% of participants called the research team to opt in. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Increasing consumer engagement: tools to engage service users in quality improvement or implementation efforts.

Introduction: Engaging service users or consumers in quality improvement or implementing a new service is important across settings and may reduce health inequities. Implementation strategies leveraging consumer engagement are neither commonly used nor robustly operationalized in implementation science. Implementers (e.g., middle managers, facilitators) want to involve consumers in implementation activities, but do not always feel confident in how to proceed. We developed a compendium of tools called Consumer Voice to guide others how to engage consumers in design/delivery of implementation strategies. Although generalizable to other settings, we developed Consumer Voice within the context of implementing suicide prevention treatments in healthcare to reach rural U.S. military veterans, as there are suicide inequities for people in rural areas. Methods: We developed Consumer Voice using a multistep process and human-centered design methods. In between steps, a design team met to generate insights from data, and decide which prototypes to create/refine. In preliminary work, we conducted a scan of examples in healthcare of patient engagement in implementation activities and interviewed two implementation experts about preferred learning styles. In Step 1, we interviewed 26 participants with experience in community engagement, implementation, or lived experience as a rural U.S. veteran with suicidal thoughts/behavior. In Step 2, 11 implementers beta tested prototypes then share feedback in focus groups. In Step 3, we reconvened participants from prior steps to review tools and, using nominal group technique, prioritized remaining recommendations. Results: Consumer Voice is online, modular, and nonlinear for self-guided learning tailored to beginner, intermediate, or advanced experience with consumer engagement. Tools consist of slides, audiovisual content with written text, and templates. Findings indicated there is not one "right" way to engage consumers in implementation activities, rather that implementers wanted tools showcasing core principles for consumer engagement and practical ideas. Discussion: Consumer Voice can be used by implementers to reflect and decide on how to apply consumer engagement implementation strategies to improve equitable dissemination and uptake of evidence-based practices. Most insights generated by user data were explicitly to build trust between consumers and professionals representing institutions, which may be one component to reducing healthcare inequities.

Implementation of LGBTQ+ affirming care policies in the Veterans Health Administration: preliminary findings on barriers and facilitators in the southern United States.

Background: In the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), veterans who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and similar gender and sexual minoritized people (LGBTQ+) experience health disparities compared to cisgender, heterosexual veterans. VA's LGBTQ+ Health Program created two healthcare policies on providing LGBTQ+ affirming care (healthcare that is inclusive, validating, and understanding of the LGBTQ+ population). The current project examines providers' barriers and facilitators to providing LGBTQ+ affirming care and LGBTQ+ veterans' barriers and facilitators to receiving LGBTQ+ affirming care. Methods: Data collection and analysis were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, which was adapted to include three health equity domains. Data collection involved telephone interviews conducted with 11 VA providers and 12 LGBTQ+ veterans at one rural and one urban VA medical center, and one rural VA community clinic. Qualitative data were rapidly analyzed using template analysis, a data reduction technique. Results: Providers described limited education, limited time, lack of experience with the population, and a lack of awareness of resources as barriers. Providers discussed comfort with consulting trusted peers, interest in learning more about providing LGBTQ+ affirming care, and openness and acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community as facilitators. LGBTQ+ veterans described a lack of provider awareness of their needs, concerns related to safety and discrimination, and structural discrimination as barriers. LGBTQ+ veterans described positive relationships with providers, knowledge of their own healthcare needs, and ability to advocate for their healthcare needs as facilitators. Although VA's LGBTQ+ affirming care policies are in place, providers and veterans noted a lack of awareness regarding specific healthcare processes. Conclusion: Allowing more time and capacity for education and engaging LGBTQ+ veterans in determining how to improve their healthcare may be the path forward to increase adherence to LGBTQ+ affirming care policies. Engaging patients, especially those from marginalized backgrounds, in strategies focused on the uptake of policy may be a path to improve policy implementation. It is possible that creating truly collaborative structures in which patients, staff, providers, leadership, and policymakers can work together towards policy implementation may be a useful strategy. In turn, improved policy implementation would result in increased physical and mental health for LGBTQ+ veterans.

Assessing researchers' capabilities, opportunities, and motivation to conduct equity-oriented dissemination and implementation research, an exploratory cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: A recent paradigm shift has led to an explicit focus on enhancing health equity through equity-oriented dissemination and implementation (D&I) research. However, the integration and bidirectional learning across these two fields is still in its infancy and siloed. This exploratory study aimed to examine participants' perceived capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to conduct equity-oriented D&I research. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory cross-sectional survey distributed online from December 2020 to April 2021. Participants were recruited at either D&I or health disparities-oriented conferences, meetings, through social media, or personal outreach via emails. Informed by the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model (COM-B), the survey queried respondents about different aspects of engaging in and conducting equity-oriented D&I research. All analyses were conducted in SPSS Version 27.0. RESULTS: A total of 180 participants responded to the survey. Most participants were women (81.7%), white (66.1%), academics (78.9%), and faculty members (53.9%). Many reported they were advanced (36.7%) or advanced beginners (27.8%) in the D&I field, and a substantial proportion (37.8%) reported being novice in D&I research that focused on health equity. Participants reported high motivation (e.g., 62.8% were motivated to apply theories, models, frameworks for promoting health equity in D&I research), but low capability to conduct equity-oriented D&I research (e.g., 5% had the information needed for promoting health equity in D&I research). Most participants (62.2%) reported not having used measures to examine equity in their D&I projects, and for those who did use measures, they mainly used individual-level measures (vs. organizational- or structural-level measures). When asked about factors that could influence their ability to conduct equity-oriented D&I research, 44.4% reported not having the skills necessary, and 32.2% stated difficulties in receiving funding for equity-oriented D&I research. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings provide empirical insight into the perspectives of researchers from different backgrounds on what is needed to conduct equity-oriented D&I research. These data suggest the need for a multi-pronged approach to enhance the capability and opportunities for conducting equity-oriented D&I work, such as: training specifically in equity-oriented D&I, collaboration between D&I researchers with individuals with expertise and lived experience with health equity research, funding for equity-oriented D&I research, and recognition of the value of community engaged research in promotion packages.

A more practical guide to incorporating health equity domains in implementation determinant frameworks.

BACKGROUND: Due to striking disparities in the implementation of healthcare innovations, it is imperative that researchers and practitioners can meaningfully use implementation determinant frameworks to understand why disparities exist in access, receipt, use, quality, or outcomes of healthcare. Our prior work documented and piloted the first published adaptation of an existing implementation determinant framework with health equity domains to create the Health Equity Implementation Framework. We recommended integrating these three health equity domains to existing implementation determinant frameworks: (1) culturally relevant factors of recipients, (2) clinical encounter or patient-provider interaction, and (3) societal context (including but not limited to social determinants of health). This framework was developed for healthcare and clinical practice settings. Some implementation teams have begun using the Health Equity Implementation Framework in their evaluations and asked for more guidance. METHODS: We completed a consensus process with our authorship team to clarify steps to incorporate a health equity lens into an implementation determinant framework. RESULTS: We describe steps to integrate health equity domains into implementation determinant frameworks for implementation research and practice. For each step, we compiled examples or practical tools to assist implementation researchers and practitioners in applying those steps. For each domain, we compiled definitions with supporting literature, showcased an illustrative example, and suggested sample quantitative and qualitative measures. CONCLUSION: Incorporating health equity domains within implementation determinant frameworks may optimize the scientific yield and equity of implementation efforts by assessing and ideally addressing implementation and equity barriers simultaneously. These practical guidance and tools provided can assist implementation researchers and practitioners to concretely capture and understand barriers and facilitators to implementation disparities.