Outcomes of a Community-Based Participatory Research Partnership Self-Evaluation: The Rochester Healthy Community Partnership Experience.

BACKGROUND: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) can effectively address health disparities among groups that are historically difficult to reach, disadvantaged, of a minority status, or are otherwise underrepresented in research. Recent research has focused on the science of CBPR partnership constructs and on developing and testing tools for self-evaluation. Because CBPR requires substantial investment in human and material resources, specific factors that support successful and sustainable research partnerships must be identified. We sought to describe the evolution, implementation, and results of a self-evaluation of a CBPR partnership. METHODS: Academic and community members of the Rochester Healthy Community Partnership (RHCP) and researchers from the University of New Mexico-Center for Participatory Research collaborated to evaluate RHCP with qualitative and quantitative research methods and group analysis. RESULTS: The self-evaluation was used to provide an overall picture of the "health" of the partnership, in terms of sustainability and ability to effectively collaborate around community priorities. RHCP members revisited the partnership's mission and values; identified associations between partnership practices, dynamics, and outcomes; and elicited insight from community and academic partners to help guide decisions about future directions and the sustainability of the partnership. Positive partnership dynamics were associated with perceived improvements in health and equity outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although engaging in a comprehensive self-evaluation requires substantial investment from stakeholders, such assessments have significant value because they enable partners to reflect on the mission and values of the partnership, explore the history and context for its existence, identify factors that have contributed to outcomes, and plan strategically for the future.

An initiative to implement immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception in rural New Mexico.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, many states have developed approaches to reimburse for immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception. Despite expanded coverage, few hospitals offer immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception. OBJECTIVES: Immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception implementation is complex and requires a committed multidisciplinary team. After New Mexico Medicaid approved reimbursement for this service, the New Mexico Perinatal Collaborative developed and initiated an evidence-based implementation program containing several components. We sought to evaluate timing of the implementation process and facilitators and barriers to immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception in several New Mexico rural hospitals. The primary study outcome was time from New Mexico Perinatal Collaborative program component introduction in each hospital to the hospital's completion of the corresponding implementation step. Secondary outcomes included barriers and facilitators to immediate postpartum contraception implementation. STUDY DESIGN: In this mixed-methods study, conducted from April 2017 to May 2018, we completed semistructured questionnaires and interviews with 20 key personnel from 7 New Mexico hospitals that planned to implement immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception. The New Mexico Perinatal Collaborative introduced program components to hospitals in a stepped-wedge design. Participants contributed baseline and follow-up data at 4 time periods detailing the steps taken towards program implementation and the timing of step completion at their hospital. Qualitative data were analyzed using directed qualitative content analysis principles based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Investigators conducted 43 interviews during the 14-month study period. Median time to complete steps toward implementation-patient education, clinician training, nursing education, charge capture, available supplies, and protocols or guidelines-ranged from 7 days for clinician training to 357 days to develop patient education materials. Facilitators of immediate postpartum contraception readiness were local hospital clinical champions and institutional administrative and financial stability. Of the 7 hospitals, 4 completed all Perinatal Collaborative implementation program components and 3 of those piloted immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception services. Two publicly funded hospitals currently offer immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception without verification of payment for the device or insertion. The third hospital piloted the program with 8 contraceptive devices, did not receive reimbursement due to identified flaws in Medicaid billing guidance and does not currently offer the service. The remaining 3 of the 7 hospitals declined to complete the NMPC program; the hospital that completed the program but did not pilot immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception did so because Medicaid billing mechanisms were incompatible with their automated billing systems. Participants consistently reported that lack of reimbursement was the major barrier to immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception implementation. CONCLUSION: Despite the New Mexico Perinatal Collaborative's robust implementation process and hospital engagement, most hospitals did not offer immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception over the study period. Reimbursement obstacles prevented full service implementation. Interventions to improve immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception access must begin with implementation of seamless billing and reimbursement mechanisms to ensure adequate hospital payments.