Challenges and promising solutions to engaging patients in healthcare implementation in the United States: an environmental scan.

BACKGROUND: One practice in healthcare implementation is patient engagement in quality improvement and systems redesign. Implementers in healthcare systems include clinical leadership, middle managers, quality improvement personnel, and others facilitating changes or adoption of new interventions. Patients provide input into different aspects of health research. However, there is little attention to involve patients in implementing interventions, especially in the United States (U.S.), and this might be essential to reduce inequities. Implementers need clear strategies to overcome challenges, and might be able to learn from countries outside the U.S. METHODS: We wanted to understand existing work about how patients are being included in implementation activities in real world U.S. healthcare settings. We conducted an environmental scan of three data sources: webinars, published articles, and interviews with implementers who engaged patients in implementation activities in U.S. healthcare settings. We extracted, categorized, and triangulated from data sources the key activities, recurring challenges, and promising solutions using a coding template. RESULTS: We found 27 examples of patient engagement in U.S. healthcare implementation across four webinars, 11 published articles, and seven interviews, mostly arranging patient engagement through groups and arranging processes for patients that changed how engaged they were able to be. Participants rarely specified if they were engaging a population experiencing healthcare inequities. Participants described eight recurring challenges; the two most frequently identified were: (1) recruiting patients representative of those served in the healthcare system; and (2) ensuring processes for equitable communication among all. We matched recurring challenges to promising solutions, such as logistic solutions on how to arrange meetings to enhance engagement or training in inclusivity and power-sharing. CONCLUSION: We clarified how some U.S. implementers are engaging patients in healthcare implementation activities using less and more intensive engagement. It was unclear whether reducing inequities was a goal. Patient engagement in redesigning U.S. healthcare service delivery appears similar to or less intense than in countries with more robust infrastructure for this, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. Challenges were common across jurisdictions, including retaining patients in the design/delivery of implementation activities. Implementers in any region can learn from those in other places.

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.

Sexual minority men want provider behavior consistent with attitudes and norms during patient-provider interactions regarding HIV prevention.

HIV is a health problem for sexual minority men in the United States. One factor among many that contributes to this HIV disparity is poor patient-provider interactions. We focused on specific provider behavior preferred by sexual minority men during patient-provider interactions about HIV prevention. We interviewed 20 HIV-negative sexual minority men who endorsed 1+ psychosocial HIV risk factor. We used follow up interviews and conventional content analysis. Among our sample, 55% identified as White; 50% as bisexual, (Mage = 28.45). Findings suggested even some providers knowledgeable about sexual minority health provided unhelpful care to sexual minority men (knowledge-behavior discrepancy). Some knowledgeable providers engaged in affirmative, tailored treatment (knowledge-behavior consistency). Specific behaviors of preferred patient-provider interactions regarding HIV prevention are reported. Our recommendations are based on patient perceptions, which is a limit and strength. We identified an important type of unhelpful patient-provider interaction for HIV-negative sexual minority men beyond discriminatory experiences. Patient-provider interaction efforts need to go beyond education to help providers practice skills. With increased focus on cultural competency for sexual minority patients, more providers may advertise their practice as affirmative, yet interactions will likely vary, may require lifelong practice of cultural humility, and impact HIV prevention.

Positive social interaction offsets impact of low socioeconomic status on stress.

BACKGROUND: Stress is associated with unhealthy behaviors and premature morbidity and mortality, especially among those of low socioeconomic status (SES). Clarifying the roles of stress-related risk and protective factors can guide interventions designed to reduce stress and improve health among socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. PURPOSE: (1) Replicate prior research showing that lower SES is associated with higher stress in a predominantly racial minority, socioeconomically disadvantaged sample, and (2) test the hypothesis that different types of social support (a protective factor) mitigate the deleterious effects of SES on self-reported perceived stress. METHODS: Low-income patients (N = 508, 54% male, 68% African American, Mage = 28) from a publicly-funded clinic provided demographic information and then completed measures of perceived stress and social support. Four types of social support were assessed (viz., affectionate, emotional/informational, positive social interaction, and tangible). Structural equation modeling tested the hypothesized associations among SES, social support, and stress. RESULTS: Individuals of lower SES, ß = -0.27 (0.08), p < 0.01, and lower overall social support, ß = -0.47 (0.05), p < 0.001, reported higher stress. Social support moderated associations between SES and stress, with participants with lower SES benefitting the most from social support. Of the four types of social support that were measured, positive social interaction was the strongest moderator, ß = 0.20 (0.08), p = 0.01. CONCLUSIONS: The associations among SES, stress, and social support corroborate prior research. Positive social interaction was particularly important for decreasing stress among socioeconomically disadvantaged persons.

Harnessing Implementation Science to Increase the Impact of Health Equity Research.

BACKGROUND: Health disparities are differences in health or health care between groups based on social, economic, and/or environmental disadvantage. Disparity research often follows 3 steps: detecting (phase 1), understanding (phase 2), and reducing (phase 3), disparities. Although disparities have narrowed over time, many remain. OBJECTIVES: We argue that implementation science could enhance disparities research by broadening the scope of phase 2 studies and offering rigorous methods to test disparity-reducing implementation strategies in phase 3 studies. METHODS: We briefly review the focus of phase 2 and phase 3 disparities research. We then provide a decision tree and case examples to illustrate how implementation science frameworks and research designs could further enhance disparity research. RESULTS: Most health disparities research emphasizes patient and provider factors as predominant mechanisms underlying disparities. Applying implementation science frameworks like the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research could help disparities research widen its scope in phase 2 studies and, in turn, develop broader disparities-reducing implementation strategies in phase 3 studies. Many phase 3 studies of disparity-reducing implementation strategies are similar to case studies, whose designs are not able to fully test causality. Implementation science research designs offer rigorous methods that could accelerate the pace at which equity is achieved in real-world practice. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities can be considered a "special case" of implementation challenges-when evidence-based clinical interventions are delivered to, and received by, vulnerable populations at lower rates. Bringing together health disparities research and implementation science could advance equity more than either could achieve on their own.

Identifying Resilience Resources for HIV Prevention Among Sexual Minority Men: A Systematic Review.

Most HIV prevention for sexual minority men and men who have sex with men targets risk behaviors (e.g., condom use) and helps <50% of participants. Bolstering resilience might increase HIV prevention's effectiveness. This systematic review identified resilience resources (protective factors) in high-risk, HIV-negative, sexual minority men. We reviewed PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, MEDLINE, references, and Listservs for studies including sexual minority men with 1+ HIV risk factor (syndemics): childhood sexual abuse, partner abuse, substance abuse, or mental health symptoms. From 1356 articles screened, 20 articles met inclusion criteria. Across the articles, we identified and codified 31 resilience resources: socioeconomic (e.g., employment), behavioral coping strategies (e.g., mental health treatment), cognitions/emotions (e.g., acceptance), and relationships. Resilience resources were generally associated with lower HIV risk; there were 18 low-risk associations, 4 high-risk associations, 8 non-significant associations). We generated a set of empirically based resilience variables and a hypothesis to be evaluated further to improve HIV prevention.

Sexual minority reflections on their psychotherapy experiences.

OBJECTIVE: Sexual minority (lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer) individuals are regular consumers of psychotherapy, and are more likely to utilize psychotherapy than heterosexually identified individuals. However, there is scant research on sexual minority clients examining their perceptions of therapists' efforts to work successfully with them. METHOD: We examined the experiences reported by sexual minority individuals in psychotherapy (N = 77), utilizing an Internet-based survey that asked open-ended questions such as, "How did your therapist address your sexual orientation?" RESULT: Using directed content analysis, we derived 19 repeating ideas, which we categorized into five major themes and two overarching concepts, including: (a) participants reported appreciating general person-centered psychotherapy competencies (e.g., active listening, validation, Socratic questioning) and (b) participants reported that various aspects of sexual orientation (e.g., therapist sexual identity, therapist knowledge about sexual minority populations) are relevant to their experiences in therapy and should be addressed directly by therapists. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicated that clients want generally competent therapists who understand that a sexual minority identity is only one part of a client's overall identity and not a defining characteristic or psychopathological. We explicate themes and representative quotes, and provide preliminary recommendations for therapists working with sexual minority clients.

Building a sharable literature collection to advance the science and practice of implementation facilitation.

Background: Implementation science seeks to produce generalizable knowledge on strategies that promote the adoption and sustained use of evidence-based innovations. Literature reviews on specific implementation strategies can help us understand how they are conceptualized and applied, synthesize findings, and identify knowledge gaps. Although rigorous literature reviews can advance scientific knowledge and facilitate theory development, they are time-consuming and costly to produce. Improving the efficiency of literature review processes and reducing redundancy of effort is especially important for this rapidly developing field. We sought to amass relevant literature on one increasingly used evidence-based strategy, implementation facilitation (IF), as a publicly available resource. Methods: We conducted a rigorous systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science citation databases for peer-reviewed, English-language articles with "facilitation" and a combination of other terms published from January 1996 to December 2021. We searched bibliographies of articles published from 1996 to 2015 and identified articles during the full text review that reported on the same study. Two authors screened 3,168 abstracts. After establishing inter-rater reliability, they individually conducted full-text review of 786 relevant articles. A multidisciplinary team of investigators provided recommendations for preparing and disseminating the literature collection. Findings: The literature collection is comprised of 510 articles. It includes 277 empirical studies of IF and 77 other articles, including conceptual/theoretical articles, literature reviews, debate papers and descriptions of large-scale clinical initiatives. Over half of the articles were published between 2017 and 2021. The collection is publicly available as an Excel file and as an xml file that can be imported into reference management software. Conclusion: We created a publicly accessible collection of literature about the application of IF to implement evidence-based innovations in healthcare. The comprehensiveness of this collection has the potential to maximize efficiency and minimize redundancy in scientific inquiry about this strategy. Scientists and practitioners can use the collection to more rapidly identify developments in the application of IF and to investigate a wide range of compelling questions on its use within and across different healthcare disciplines/settings, countries, and payer systems. We offer several examples of how this collection has already been used.

Impact of Primary Care-Mental Health Care Integration on Mental Health Care Engagement Across Racial and Ethnic Groups.

OBJECTIVE: Receiving mental health services as part of primary care in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) might increase engagement in specialty mental health care. The authors reexamined the association between primary care-mental health integration (PCMHI) and continued engagement in specialty mental health care for VHA patients and assessed differences by race and ethnicity. METHODS: The study included 437,051 primary care patients with a first in-person specialty mental health encounter in 2015-2016 (no specialty mental health encounters in prior 12 months), including 46,417 patients with new PCMHI encounters in the year before the first specialty mental health encounter. Multivariable logistic regression assessed odds of follow-up specialty mental health care within 3 months of the first specialty mental health encounter. The dependent variable was care engagement (attending a second specialty mental health appointment); independent variables were whether patients were seen by PCMHI on the same day as the primary care appointment ("same-day access"), the time between PCMHI and first specialty mental health appointments, and race and ethnicity. RESULTS: PCMHI was associated with increased engagement in specialty mental health care for all patients, with a greater likelihood of engagement among non-Hispanic White patients. Same-day access to PCMHI was positively associated with care engagement, with no significant differences by race or ethnicity. PCMHI care within 3 months before a first specialty mental health encounter was associated with greater care engagement. CONCLUSIONS: PCMHI, especially same-day access to PCMHI care, may boost engagement in mental health care, although the study design precluded conclusions regarding causal relationships.

Transitioning an implementation research intervention to a sustained clinical service: Telehealth primary care mental health integration implementation in Veterans Health Administration.

Often in implementation science efforts, an intervention originated by research funding does not continue in clinical practice after funding ends, or if it does, the process by which it was sustained remains known only to the implementation research or clinical teams. From 2018 to 2020, we implemented a complex telehealth interdisciplinary behavioral health program supported by research funding. The intervention was Primary Care Mental Health Integration (PCMHI) delivered via televideo from a large parent medical facility to rural satellite clinics (tele-PCMHI) within the Veterans Health Administration. Two implementation facilitators worked closely with clinical leaders and staff to plan, launch, and sustain tele-PCMHI across four sites. The intervention is still maintained by the clinical service and has spread to eight sites. Based on ethnographic and qualitative data collected weekly over 2 years, we categorized sustainment strategies across distinct time periods for this complex program, theoretically grounded in the Dynamic Sustainability Framework, emphasizing changes to adapt intervention fit to rapidly changing context. To contextualize, we identified barriers and strengths, such as difficulty training staff to use new equipment, restructuring clinic workflow, and determining suicide risk management remotely. New barriers arose, and, thus, new strategies were needed to continue implementing at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Different strategies at different stages of implementation allowed sustainment to be a dynamic and evolving process. Plus, proactive and persistent planning for sustainment early in the effort, along with alignment with performance metrics and national policy, supported continued delivery in real-world organized care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).