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.

Factors influencing engagement in in-person and remotely delivered lifestyle interventions for young adults with serious mental illness: A qualitative study.

AIM: Young adults (ages 18-35) are underrepresented in lifestyle interventions for people with serious mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and severe depression, and little is known about factors influencing their engagement in these programmes. This qualitative study examined factors affecting engagement amongst young adults with SMI who were enrolled in a lifestyle intervention trial at community mental health centres. METHODS: Seventeen young adults with SMI participated in this qualitative study. Participants were drawn from a 12-month randomized controlled trial (n = 150) comparing an in-person group lifestyle intervention augmented with mobile health technology (PeerFIT) to one-on-one personalized remote health coaching (BEAT) using purposive sampling. The 17 participants completed semi-structured qualitative interviews at post-intervention to explore their perceived benefits of the intervention and factors impacting engagement. We used a team-based descriptive qualitative approach to code transcripts and identify themes in the data. RESULTS: Participants across both interventions reported experiencing improved ability to engage in health behaviour change. Participants described managing psychosocial stressors and family and other responsibilities that limited their ability to attend in-person PeerFIT sessions. The remote and flexible BEAT remote health coaching intervention appeared to facilitate engagement even in the context of challenging life circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: Remotely delivered lifestyle interventions can facilitate engagement amongst young adults with SMI navigating social stressors.