The Role of Telehealth in Improving Care Connections and Outcomes for Community Health Center Patients with Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Does telehealth decrease health disparities by improving connections to care or simply result in new barriers for vulnerable populations who often lack access to technology? This study aims to better understand the role of telehealth and social determinants of health in improving care connections and outcomes for Community Health Center patients with diabetes. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of Electronic Health Record (EHR) data examined the relationship between telehealth utilization and glycemic control and consistency of connection to the health care team ("connectivity"). EHR data were collected from 20 Community Health Centers from July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2021. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and multivariable linear regression was used to assess the associations between telehealth use and engagement in care and glycemic control. RESULTS: The adjusted analysis found positive, statistically significant associations between telehealth use and each of the 2 primary outcomes. Telehealth use was associated with 0.89 additional months of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) control (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.04) and 4.49 additional months of connection to care (95% CI, 4.27 to 4.70). DISCUSSION: The demonstrated increased engagement in primary care for telehealth users is significant and encouraging as Community Health Center populations are at greater risk of lapses in care and loss to follow up. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth can be a highly effective, patient-centered form of care for people with diabetes. Telehealth can play a critical role in keeping vulnerable patients with diabetes connected to their care team and involved in care and may be an important tool for reducing health disparities.

Changes in Buprenorphine Prescribing in Community Health Centers.

This cohort study characterizes changes in buprenorphine prescribing among community health center clinicians between 2016 and 2021.

Barriers to Clinical Trial Implementation Among Community Care Centers.

Importance: While an overwhelming majority of patients diagnosed with cancer express willingness to participate in clinical trials, only a fraction will enroll onto a research protocol. Objective: To identify critical barriers to trial enrollment to translate findings into actionable practice changes that increase cancer clinical trial enrollment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study included designated site contacts at oncology practices with teams who were highly involved with the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Community Oncology Research Institute (ACORI) clinical trials activities, all American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-ACCC collaboration pilot sites, and/or sites providing care to at least 25% African American and Hispanic residents. To determine participation trends among health care practices in oncology-focused research, identify barriers to clinical trial implementation and operation, and establish unmet needs for cancer clinics interested in trial participation, a 34-question survey was designed. Survey questions were defined within 3 categories: cancer center demographic characteristics, clinical trial characteristics, and referral practices. The survey was distributed through email and was open from June 20 through October 5, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participation in and barriers to conducting oncology trials in different community oncology settings. Results: The survey was distributed to 100 cancer centers, with completion by 58 centers (58%) across 25 states. Fifty-two centers (88%) reported that they conduct therapeutic clinical trials, of which 33 (63%) were from urban settings, 11 (21%) were from suburban settings, and 8 (15%) were from rural settings. Only 25% of rural practices (2 of 8) offered phase 1 trials, compared with 67% of urban practices (22 of 33) (P = .01). Respondents noted challenges in conducting research, including patient recruitment (27 respondents [52%]), limited staffing (27 [52%]), and nonrelevant trials for their patient population (25 [48%]). Among sites not offering therapeutic trials, barriers to research conduct included limited infrastructure, funding, and staffing. Most centers (46 of 58 [79%]) referred patients to outside centers for clinical trial enrollment, particularly in the context of late-stage disease and/or disease progression. Only 17 of these sites (37%) had established protocols for patient follow-up subsequent to outside referral. Conclusions and Relevance: In this national survey study of barriers to clinical trial implementation, most sites offered therapeutic trials, but there were significant disparities in trial availability across care settings. Furthermore, fundamental deficiencies in trial support infrastructure limited research activity, including within programs currently conducting research as well as at sites interested in future clinical research opportunities. These results identify crucial unmet needs for oncology clinics to effectively offer clinical trials to patients seeking care.

Large-Scale Telemedicine Implementation for Outpatient Clinicians: Results From a Pandemic-Adapted Learning Collaborative.

Learning collaboratives are seldom used outside of health care quality improvement. We describe a condensed, 10-week learning collaborative ("Telemedicine Hack") that facilitated telemedicine implementation for outpatient clinicians early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Live attendance averaged 1688 participants per session. Of 1005 baseline survey respondents, 57% were clinicians with one-third identifying as from a racial/ethnic minoritized group. Practice characteristics included primary care (71%), rural settings (51%), and community health centers (28%). Of three surveys, a high of 438 (81%) of 540 clinicians had billed ≥1 video-based telemedicine visit. Our learning collaborative "sprint" is a promising model for scaling knowledge during emergencies and addressing health inequities.

Smoking Cessation Support in the Context of Other Social and Behavioral Needs in Community Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking rates remain disproportionately high among low income populations with unmet social and behavioral health needs. To address this problem, we sought to develop and evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel smoking cessation program for community health centers that serve these populations. METHODS: We implemented a randomized pilot trial of two smoking cessation programs in three county operated community health center (CHC) sites: (1) a systematic assessment of smoking habits and standard tools to assist with smoking cessation counseling ("Enhanced Standard Program" or ESP), and (2) another that added a structured assessment of social and behavioral barriers to smoking cessation, ("Connection to Health for Smokers" or CTHS). Clinical outcomes were evaluated between 10 to 16 weeks, supplemented with interviews of patient participants and health care team members. RESULTS: 141 adults were randomized and 123 completed the intervention (61 in ESP, 62 in CTHS). At follow-up, over half of participants reported ≥1 quit attempts (59.7% ESP and 56.5% CTHS; adjusted p = .66) while more in ESP (24.6% vs. 12.9%) were documented as not smoking in the last 7 days (adjusted p = 0.03). In addition to being in ESP, predictors of smoking cessation included higher baseline confidence in ability to quit (p = 0.02) and more quit attempts during the study (p = 0.04). Health care teams, however, generally preferred the more comprehensive approach of CTHS. CONCLUSION: Lessons learned from this pilot study may inform the development of effective smoking cessation programs for CHCs that combine elements of both interventions.

Ten-Year Outcomes: Community Health Center/Academic Medicine Partnership for Rural Family Medicine Training.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The widening gap between urban and rural health outcomes is exacerbated by physician shortages that disproportionately affect rural communities. Rural residencies are an effective mechanism to increase physician placement in rural and medically underserved areas yet are limited in number due to funding. Community health center/academic medicine partnerships (CHAMPs) can serve as a collaborative framework for expansion of academic primary care residencies outside of traditional funding models. This report describes 10-year outcomes of a rural training pathway developed as part of a CHAMP collaboration. METHODS: Using data from internal registries and public sources, our retrospective study examined demographic and postgraduation practice characteristics for rural pathway graduates. We identified the rates of postgraduation placement in rural (Federal Office of Rural Health Policy grant-eligible) and federally designated Medically Underserved Areas/Populations (MUA/Ps). We assessed current placement for graduates >3 years from program completion. RESULTS: Over a 10-year period, 25 trainees graduated from the two residency expansion sites. Immediately postgraduation, 84% (21) were in primary care Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs), 80% (20) in MUA/Ps, and 60% (15) in rural locations. Sixteen graduates were >3 years from program completion, including 69% (11) in primary care HPSAs, 69% (11) in MUA/Ps, and 50% (5) in rural locations. CONCLUSIONS: This CHAMP collaboration supported development of a rural pathway that embedded family medicine residents in community health centers and effectively increased placement in rural and MUA/Ps. This report adds to national research on rural workforce development, highlighting the role of academic-community partnerships in expanding rural residency training outside of traditional funding models.

SCALE-UP II: protocol for a pragmatic randomised trial examining population health management interventions to increase the uptake of at-home COVID-19 testing in community health centres.

INTRODUCTION: SCALE-UP II aims to investigate the effectiveness of population health management interventions using text messaging (TM), chatbots and patient navigation (PN) in increasing the uptake of at-home COVID-19 testing among patients in historically marginalised communities, specifically, those receiving care at community health centres (CHCs). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The trial is a multisite, randomised pragmatic clinical trial. Eligible patients are >18 years old with a primary care visit in the last 3 years at one of the participating CHCs. Demographic data will be obtained from CHC electronic health records. Patients will be randomised to one of two factorial designs based on smartphone ownership. Patients who self-report replying to a text message that they have a smartphone will be randomised in a 2×2×2 factorial fashion to receive (1) chatbot or TM; (2) PN (yes or no); and (3) repeated offers to interact with the interventions every 10 or 30 days. Participants who do not self-report as having a smartphone will be randomised in a 2×2 factorial fashion to receive (1) TM with or without PN; and (2) repeated offers every 10 or 30 days. The interventions will be sent in English or Spanish, with an option to request at-home COVID-19 test kits. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants using at-home COVID-19 tests during a 90-day follow-up. The study will evaluate the main effects and interactions among interventions, implementation outcomes and predictors and moderators of study outcomes. Statistical analyses will include logistic regression, stratified subgroup analyses and adjustment for stratification factors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board. On completion, study data will be made available in compliance with National Institutes of Health data sharing policies. Results will be disseminated through study partners and peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05533918 and NCT05533359.

Capacity of community health centers to treat snakebite envenoming in indigenous territories of the Brazilian Amazon.

INTRODUCTION: The deaths from and morbidities associated with snakebites - amputations, loss of function in the limb, visible scarring or tissue damage - have a vast economic, social, and psychological impact on indigenous communities in the Brazilian Amazon, especially children, and represent a real and pressing health crisis in this population. Snakebite clinical and research experts have therefore proposed expanding antivenom access from only hospitals to include the community health centers (CHC) located near and within indigenous communities. However, there are no studies examining the capacity of CHCs to store, administer, and manage antivenom treatment. In response to this gap, the research team calling for antivenom decentralization developed and validated an expert-based checklist outlining the minimum requirements for a CHC to provide antivenom. METHODS: The objective of this study was thus to survey a sample of CHCs in indigenous territories and evaluate their capacity to provide antivenom treatment according to this accredited checklist. The checklist was administered to nurses and doctors from 16 CHCs, two per indigenous district in Amazonas/Roraima states. RESULTS: Our results can be conceptualized into three central findings: 1) most CHCs have the capacity to provide antivenom treatment, 2) challenges to capacity are human resources and specialized items, and 3) antivenom decentralization is feasible and appropriate in indigenous communities. CONCLUSION: Decentralization would provide culturally and contextually appropriate care accessibility to a historically marginalized and underserved population of the Brazilian Amazon. Future studies should examine optimal resource allocation in indigenous territories and develop an implementation strategy in partnership with indigenous leaders. Beyond the indigenous population, the checklist utilized could be applied to community health centers treating the general population and/or adapted to other low-resource settings.

The co-production process of an assessment programme: Between clarifying identity and developing the quality of French-speaking Belgian community health centres.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of primary care organizations is considered to be essential for improving care. However, the assessments' acceptability to professionals poses a challenge. Developing assessment programmes in collaboration with the end-users is a strategy that is widely encouraged to make interventions better targeted. By doing so, it can help to prevent resistance and encourage adherence to the assessment. This process, however, is rarely reported. This paper aims to fill this gap by describing the process of the co-production of an assessment programme for community health centres (CHCs) affiliated to the Federation of Community Health Centres (FCHC) in French-speaking Belgium. METHODS: We conducted a documentary study on the co-production of the assessment programme before carrying out semi-structured interviews with the stakeholders involved in its development. RESULTS: CHCs in French-speaking Belgium are increasing in number and are becoming more diverse. For the FCHC, this growth and diversification pose challenges for the meaning of CHC (an identity challenge) and what beneficiaries can expect in terms of the quality of organizations declaring themselves CHC (a quality challenge). Faced with this double challenge, the FCHC decided to develop an assessment programme, initially called Label, using participatory action research. During the co-production process, this initial programme version was abandoned in favour of a new name "DEQuaP". This new name embodies new objectives and new design regarding the assessment programme. When studying the co-production process, we attributed these changes to two controversies. The first concerns how much and which type of variety is desired among CHCs part of the FCHC. The second concerns the organization of the FCHC in its capacity as a federation. It shed light on tensions between two professional segments that, in this paper, we called "political professionalism" and "pragmatic professionalism". CONCLUSIONS: These controversies show the importance of underlying challenges behind the development of an assessment programme for CHCs. This provided information about the evolution of the identity of multidisciplinary organizations in primary care. Issues raised in the development of this assessment programme also show the importance of considering assessment methods that reflect and embody the current realities of these organizations and the way of developing these assessment methods.

Linguistic Disparities in Diabetes Care Quality in California Community Health Centers Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in diabetes care quality may have increased for patients with limited English language proficiency (LEP) compared to non-LEP patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes in diabetes care quality for adult LEP and non-LEP patients of community health centers (CHCs) were examined from 2019 to 2020. METHODS: Adults with Type 2 diabetes (n = 15 965) of 88 CHC sites in California and with 1+ visit/year in 2019 and 2020 from OCHIN electronic health record data were included. Multivariable regression models estimated the association of LEP status and changes in diabetes care quality from 2019 to 2020, controlling for patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Interaction terms (LEP × 2020) were used to estimate differential over time changes in (1) blood pressure screening, (2) blood pressure control (<140/90 mm Hg), and (3) hemoglobin A1c control (HbA1c <8%) for LEP versus non-LEP patients. RESULTS: LEP and non-LEP patients with diabetes had comparable blood pressure screening and control in 2019 and in 2020. LEP patients were less likely than non-LEP patients to have their HbA1c under control in 2019 (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.77, 0.96, P = .006) and 2020 (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.75, 0.92, P = .001). There were no differential changes in HbA1c control over time for LEP and non-LEP patients. DISCUSSION: Although LEP patients were less likely than non-LEP patients to have their HbA1c under control, CHCs maintained quality of care equally for LEP and non-LEP patients with diabetes during the early pandemic period.

Weight Gain Prevention Outcomes From a Pragmatic Digital Health Intervention With Community Health Center Patients: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obesity and its associated comorbidities continue to rise in the United States. Populations who are uninsured and from racial and ethnic minority groups continue to be disproportionately affected. These populations also experience fewer clinically meaningful outcomes in most weight loss trials. Weight gain prevention presents a useful strategy for individuals who experience barriers to weight loss. Given the often-limited weight management resources available to patients in primary care settings serving vulnerable patients, evaluating interventions with pragmatic designs may help inform the design of comprehensive obesity care delivered in primary care. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Balance, a 2-arm, 12-month pragmatic randomized controlled trial of a digital weight gain prevention intervention, delivered to patients receiving primary care within federally qualified community health centers. METHODS: Balance was a 2-arm, 12-month pragmatic randomized controlled trial of a digital weight gain prevention intervention delivered to individuals who had a BMI of 25-40 kg/m2, spoke English or Spanish, and were receiving primary care within a network of federally qualified community health centers in North Carolina. The Balance intervention was designed to encourage behavioral changes that result in a slight energy deficit. Intervention participants received tailored goal setting and tracking, skills training, self-monitoring, and responsive health coaching from registered dietitians. Weight was measured at regular primary care visits and documented in the electronic health record. We compared the percentage of ≤3% weight gain in each arm at 24 months after randomization-our primary outcome-using individual empirical best linear unbiased predictors from the linear mixed-effects model. We used individual empirical best linear unbiased predictors from participants with at least 1 electronic health record weight documented within a 6-month window centered on the 24-month time point. RESULTS: We randomized 443 participants, of which 223 (50.3%) participants were allocated to the intervention arm. At baseline, participants had a mean BMI of 32.6 kg/m2. Most participants were Latino or Hispanic (n=200, 45.1%) or non-Latino or Hispanic White (n=115, 26%). In total, 53% (n=235) of participants had at least 1 visit with weight measured in the primary time window. The intervention group had a higher proportion with ≤3% weight gain at 6 months (risk ratio=1.12, 95% CI 0.94-1.28; risk difference=9.5, 95% CI -4.5 to 16.4 percentage points). This difference attenuated to the null by 24 months (risk ratio=1.00, 95% CI 0.82-1.20; risk difference=0.2, 95% CI -12.1 to 11.0 percentage points). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with overweight or obesity receiving primary care at a community health center, we did not find long-term evidence to support the dissemination of a digital health intervention for weight gain prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03003403; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03003403. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s12889-019-6926-7.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Blood Pressure and Glycemic Control in the US Community Health Center Patient Population.

OBJECTIVE: To describe blood pressure and glycemic control by racial/ethnic group in the US Community Health Center (CHC) patient population, and whether center characteristics, proxying for higher resource levels and better quality of care, were associated with greater rates of controlled cardiometabolic conditions. METHODS: Data came from the Uniform Data System, representing aggregate patient clinical data for individual health centers in 2019. Descriptive analyses were conducted weighting by health center patient populations to produce race-specific national rates of blood pressure and glycemic control, and linear regression is used to test whether cardiometabolic control rates varied by center characteristics. RESULTS: Hypertension was controlled for 67.2% of non-Hispanic White, 66.9% of Hispanic, and 56.7% of non-Hispanic Black patients. Diabetes was controlled for 70.7% of non-Hispanic White, 65.7% of Hispanic, and 66.1% of non-Hispanic Black patients. The rate of blood pressure control was 2.54 to 3.99 percentage points higher across racial/ethnic groups in health centers that adopted a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model of care relative to non-PCMH centers, while glycemic control was 1.08 to 2.27 pp. higher as a function of PCMH certification. Results for other center characteristics did not show consistent patterns across racial groups or outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study documented racial and ethnic health disparities in the CHC patient population after major expansion of the CHC program. CHCs with PCMH certification have improved clinical outcomes among patients with hypertension and diabetes across racial/ethnic groups relative to centers without this certification.

Unwinding of Continuous Medicaid Coverage Among Patients at Community Health Centers.

This retrospective cohort study uses data from the Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center Network to assess patterns of Medicaid disenrollment during the first 6 months after the end of continuous enrollment.

Comparison of healthcare quality for uninsured and underinsured children through community health centres in Canada and the USA: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Children and youth who are uninsured or underinsured in Canada and the USA have limited options where they can receive healthcare. In both countries, community health centres (CHCs) have been established as a solution to provide quality care to children without adequate insurance, including those who are newcomers or refugees. However, little is known about how well these models deliver paediatric care. Cross-country analysis provides an important viewpoint to identify areas of success and growth. The purpose of this scoping review is to compare quality of care for uninsured and underinsured children through CHCs in the USA and Canada. METHODS: This scoping review follows the methodological guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence synthesis. The protocol has been registered with the Open Science Framework Registries and can be accessed online. A search will be conducted in electronic databases of peer-reviewed literature (Ovid MEDLINE ALL, CINAHL Complete via EbscoHost, Scopus; Health Business Elite via EbscoHost and Sociological Abstracts via ProQuest) as well as the grey literature. Two reviewers will review all titles and abstracts for inclusion in full-text review. Studies that meet inclusion criteria will be included in full-text review. Data will be extracted into Covidence, using the Donabedian model as a conceptual framework. Findings will be synthesised in a narrative format. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study only uses publicly available data, ethics approval is not required. Findings will be shared at national and international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, findings will be prepared into a policy brief or white paper to be shared with relevant policy stakeholders to advocate for a better model of care for marginalised children and youth.

Mental health care provision in community health centers and hospital emergency department utilization.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether community health centers (CHCs) are effective in offsetting mental health emergency department (ED) visits. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: The HRSA Uniform Data System and the HCUP State ED Databases for Florida patients during 2012-2019. STUDY DESIGN: We identified CHC-year-specific service areas using patient origin zip codes. We then estimated panel data models for number of ED mental health visits per capita in a CHC's service area. Models measured CHC mental health utilization as number of visits, unique patients, and intensity (visits per patient). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: CHC mental health utilization increased approximately 100% during 2012-2019. Increased CHC mental health provision was associated with small reductions in ED mental health utilization. An annual increase of 1000 CHC mental health care visits (5%) was associated with 0.44% fewer ED mental health care visits (p = 0.153), and an increase of 1000 CHC mental health care patients (15%) with 1.9% fewer ED mental health care visits (p = 0.123). An increase of 1 annual mental health visit per patient was associated with 16% fewer ED mental health care visits (p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that mental health provision in CHCs may reduce reliance on hospital EDs, albeit minimally. Policies that promote alignment of services between CHCs and local hospitals may accelerate this effect.

Care Delivery in Community Health Centers Before, During, and After the COVID-19 Pandemic (2019-2022).

INTRODUCTION: Health centers provide primary and behavioral health care to the nation's safety net population. Many health centers served on the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic, which brought major changes to health center care delivery. OBJECTIVE: To elucidate primary care and behavioral health service delivery patterns in health centers before and during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE). METHODS: We compared annual and monthly patients from 2019 to 2022 for new and established patients by visit type (primary care, behavioral health) and encounter visits by modality (in-person, telehealth) across 218 health centers in 13 states. RESULTS: There were 1581,744 unique patients in the sample, most from health disparate populations. Review of primary care data over 4 years show that health centers served fewer pediatric patients over time, while retaining the capacity to provide to patients 65+. Monthly data on encounters highlights that the initial shift in March/April 2020 to telehealth was not sustained and that in-person visits rose steadily after November/December 2020 to return as the predominant care delivery mode. With regards to behavioral health, health centers continued to provide care to established patients throughout the PHE, while serving fewer new patients over time. In contrast to primary care, after initial uptake of telehealth in March/April 2020, telehealth encounters remained the predominant care delivery mode through 2022. CONCLUSION: Four years of data demonstrate how COVID-19 impacted delivery of primary care and behavioral health care for patients, highlighting gaps in pediatric care delivery and trends in telehealth over time.

Implementing and Enhancing Social and Economic Needs Screening at a Federally Qualified Health Center.

BACKGROUND: Programs to screen for social and economic needs (SENs) are challenging to implement. AIM: To describe implementation of an SEN screening program for patients obtaining care at a federally qualified health center (FQHC). SETTING: Large Chicago-area FQHC where many patients are Hispanic/Latino and insured through Medicaid. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: In the program's phase 1 (beginning April 2020), a prescreening question asked about patients' interest in receiving community resources; staff then called interested patients. After several refinements (e.g., increased staffing, tailored reductions in screening frequency) to address challenges such as a large screening backlog, program phase 2 began in February 2021. In phase 2, a second prescreening question asked about patients' preferred modality to learn about community resources (text/email versus phone calls). PROGRAM EVALUATION: During phase 1, 8925 of 29,861 patients (30%) expressed interest in community resources. Only 40% of interested patients were successfully contacted and screened. In phase 2, 5781 of 21,737 patients (27%) expressed interest in resources; 84% of interested patients were successfully contacted by either text/email (43%) or phone (41%). DISCUSSION: Under one-third of patients obtaining care at an FQHC expressed interest in community resources for SENs. After program refinements, rates of follow-up with interested patients substantially increased.

Leveraging an implementation science partnership network to understand how Federally Qualified Health Centers operationalize and address health equity.

Health equity-focused implementation research requires using definitions and approaches that are relevant and meaningful to implementation partners. We examined how health equity was operationalized and addressed at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). We conducted semi-structured interviews with leadership (n = 19) and staff (n = 12) at 10 FQHCs in an implementation science partnership network for cancer control equity to understand how they operationalized and addressed health equity. We performed rapid qualitative analysis and shared findings with a larger group of 13 community health centers (including the 10 FQHCs) at an Implementation Learning Community (ILC) to identify action areas for research and practice, followed by a second phase of synthesizing qualitative codes into themes and mapping themes onto a framework for advancing health equity in healthcare organizations. Participants defined health equity as central to the mission of FQHCs, and identified barriers (e.g. financing models) and facilitators (e.g. interpreter services) to advancing health equity at FQHCs. These findings resonated with ILC participants who emphasized the challenge of addressing root cause social determinants of inequities using limited available resources in FQHCs and the importance of developing meaningful collaboration with communities for data collection, data interpretation, data use, and data ownership. Themes captured recommendations to advance health equity in daily work at FQHCs, including investments in staffing, training, and resources. Mapping qualitative themes from health equity-centered interviews with FQHC partners onto a framework for advancing health equity in healthcare organizations can provide clear, context-specific direction for actions aimed at improving health and healthcare equity.

Health equity-focused implementation research requires using definitions and approaches that are relevant and meaningful to implementation partners. Toward this goal, our research team asked leadership and staff at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) to share how they defined and addressed health equity at their practice settings. FQHC participants defined health equity as the essential mission of FQHCs as safety net organizations delivering care to medically underserved populations. In addition, key informants identified barriers (e.g. financing models) and facilitators (e.g. interpreter services) to advancing health equity at FQHCs. We presented these findings to a larger group of FQHC stakeholders who recommended that future implementation research and practice consider how FQHCs are challenged to address the root causes of healthcare inequities with limited resources. They also highlighted the importance of meaningful collaboration among researchers, FQHCs, and communities for data collection, data interpretation, data use, and data ownership to advance health equity. Conducting research to understand the perspectives and experiences of FQHC partners can provide clear, context-specific direction for actions to improve health equity and can inform future approaches to health equity-focused implementation research that ismeaningful to FQHC partners and the communities they serve.