ArticleResearch square2024
Assessing the Inner Setting among Massachusetts Community Health Centers: Opportunities for Multilevel Investigation and Expansion of Influences on Health Equity.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Implementation science increasingly aims to improve equity in delivery of evidence-based interventions. It is important to expand the conceptualization of the inner setting, organizations like community health centers where interventions are put into place, accordingly. Taking a comprehensive, partnered approach to measuring the inner setting among a network of community health centers engaged in implementation research ensures assessment of the variability among sites and generates centralized contextual data that can be applied across studies. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among staff (n = 63) from 12 community health centers in Massachusetts engaged in research at the Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control Equity. The survey assessed inner setting constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, including learning climate, leadership engagement, available resources, and implementation demands/stress using validated measures. Additional equity-focused inner setting items included structural characteristics of the work infrastructure and language access services. Descriptive statistics examined differences by staff role and health center. Results: Staff rated learning climate (mean = 3.98) and leadership engagement (mean = 3.67) positively, while available resources (mean = 2.78) had the lowest rating, particularly staffing resources. Clinical staff rated the inner context lowest compared to other roles. Most centers provided tuition assistance and all reported supportive human resources benefits for caregiving, while fewer offered formal mentorship or affinity groups. Most community health centers reported written materials are routinely provided to patients in languages other than English and interpreter services were most common in Spanish, Vietnamese, and Portuguese. Conclusions: This study provides a baseline assessment of the inner setting within Massachusetts community health centers. Periodic follow-up surveys will monitor changes over time. Data can be used in future analyses to explore how inner setting characteristics influence implementation outcomes and impact equitable translation of evidence-based interventions into practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.