Building the foundation for a community-generated national research blueprint for inherited bleeding disorders: research priorities in health services; diversity, equity, and inclusion; and implementation science.

BACKGROUND: The National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF) conducted extensive all-stakeholder inherited bleeding disorder (BD) community consultations to inform a blueprint for future research. Sustaining and expanding the specialized and comprehensive Hemophilia Treatment Center care model, to better serve all people with inherited BDs (PWIBD), and increasing equitable access to optimal health emerged as top priorities. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: NHF, with the American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network (ATHN), convened multidisciplinary expert working groups (WG) to distill priority research initiatives from consultation findings. WG5 was charged with prioritizing health services research (HSR); diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); and implementation science (IS) research initiatives to advance community-identified priorities. RESULTS: WG5 identified multiple priority research themes and initiatives essential to capitalizing on this potential. Formative studies using qualitative and mixed methods approaches should be conducted to characterize issues and meaningfully investigate interventions. Investment in HSR, DEI and IS education, training, and workforce development are vital. CONCLUSIONS: An enormous amount of work is required in the areas of HSR, DEI, and IS, which have received inadequate attention in inherited BDs. This research has great potential to evolve the experiences of PWIBD, deliver transformational community-based care, and advance health equity.

Research into how people get their health care, called health services research, is important to understand if care is being delivered equitably and efficiently. This research figures out how to provide the best care at the lowest cost and finds out if everyone gets equally good care. Diversity and inclusion research focuses on whether all marginalized and minoritized populations (such as a given social standing, race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, sexuality, age, income, disability status, language, culture, faith, geographic location, or country of birth) receive equitable care. This includes checking whether different populations are all getting the care they need and looking for ways to improve the care. Implementation science studies how to make a potential improvement work in the real world. The improvement could be a new way to diagnose or treat a health condition, a better way to deliver health care or do research, or a strategy to remove barriers preventing specific populations from getting the best available care. The National Hemophilia Foundation focuses on improving the lives of all people with bleeding disorders (BD). They brought BDs doctors, nurses, physical therapists, social workers, professors, and government and industry partners together with people and families living with BDs to discuss research in the areas described above. The group came up with important future research questions to address racism and other biases, and other changes to policies, procedures, and practices to make BD care equitable, efficient, and effective.

Association of Socioeconomic Status with Eye Health Among Women With and Without Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between socioeconomic position (SEP) and poor eye health among women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included the 7,708 women aged ≥ 40 years who participated in the 2008 National Health Interview Survey. We defined poor eye health as self-reported age-related eye diseases (AREDs; cataract, glaucoma, macular degeneration, or diabetic retinopathy) or visual impairment (VI). We identified diagnosed diabetes by self-report. We measured SEP by education attained and annual household income. We conducted logistic regression analyses while controlling for demographic, clinical, behavioral, and healthcare access variables. RESULTS: The age-standardized prevalence of VI and ARED was significantly higher among women with diagnosed diabetes than among those without diagnosed diabetes, 29.8% versus 14.4% and 34.1% versus 20.8%, respectively (p < 0.05 for both). The prevalence of VI and ARED increased with decreasing SEP, but the trends were only significant among women without diabetes. After multivariable adjustment, education and income were significantly associated with VI but not with ARED. We found no interaction with diagnosed diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: SEP was inversely associated with VI but not with ARED. We found no interaction with diagnosed diabetes.