Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28806362›Full record

ArticleMedical care2017

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

Matthew Chinman, Eva N Woodward, Geoffrey M Curran, Leslie R M Hausmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 100 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
100citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

100 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

40 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Matthew Chinman*Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, VA Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion (CHERP), Pittsburgh, PA †Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, South Central Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC) ‡Department of Psychiatry, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences §Center for Implementation Research, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR ∥Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Eva N Woodward
Geoffrey M Curran
Leslie R M Hausmann

Funding

Preparing to Run Effective Prevention (PREP)R01AA022353 · NIAAA · RAND CORPORATION · PI CHINMAN, MATTHEW · 2013 to 2017
$3.3M
NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA022353
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth 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.

objectivesWe 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsMost 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.

conclusionsDisparities 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.

Indexed as

Health EquityHealthcare DisparitiesHealth Plan ImplementationHealth Services ResearchHumansQuality ImprovementVulnerable Populations

Identifiers

PMID28806362
PMCPMC5639697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.