88
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      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

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references113

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique

          An approach to the construction of classifiers from imbalanced datasets is described. A dataset is imbalanced if the classification categories are not approximately equally represented. Often real-world data sets are predominately composed of ``normal'' examples with only a small percentage of ``abnormal'' or ``interesting'' examples. It is also the case that the cost of misclassifying an abnormal (interesting) example as a normal example is often much higher than the cost of the reverse error. Under-sampling of the majority (normal) class has been proposed as a good means of increasing the sensitivity of a classifier to the minority class. This paper shows that a combination of our method of over-sampling the minority (abnormal) class and under-sampling the majority (normal) class can achieve better classifier performance (in ROC space) than only under-sampling the majority class. This paper also shows that a combination of our method of over-sampling the minority class and under-sampling the majority class can achieve better classifier performance (in ROC space) than varying the loss ratios in Ripper or class priors in Naive Bayes. Our method of over-sampling the minority class involves creating synthetic minority class examples. Experiments are performed using C4.5, Ripper and a Naive Bayes classifier. The method is evaluated using the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUC) and the ROC convex hull strategy.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda

            An unresolved issue in the field of implementation research is how to conceptualize and evaluate successful implementation. This paper advances the concept of “implementation outcomes” distinct from service system and clinical treatment outcomes. This paper proposes a heuristic, working “taxonomy” of eight conceptually distinct implementation outcomes—acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability—along with their nominal definitions. We propose a two-pronged agenda for research on implementation outcomes. Conceptualizing and measuring implementation outcomes will advance understanding of implementation processes, enhance efficiency in implementation research, and pave the way for studies of the comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact.

              This study proposes methods for blending design components of clinical effectiveness and implementation research. Such blending can provide benefits over pursuing these lines of research independently; for example, more rapid translational gains, more effective implementation strategies, and more useful information for decision makers. This study proposes a "hybrid effectiveness-implementation" typology, describes a rationale for their use, outlines the design decisions that must be faced, and provides several real-world examples. An effectiveness-implementation hybrid design is one that takes a dual focus a priori in assessing clinical effectiveness and implementation. We propose 3 hybrid types: (1) testing effects of a clinical intervention on relevant outcomes while observing and gathering information on implementation; (2) dual testing of clinical and implementation interventions/strategies; and (3) testing of an implementation strategy while observing and gathering information on the clinical intervention's impact on relevant outcomes. The hybrid typology proposed herein must be considered a construct still in evolution. Although traditional clinical effectiveness and implementation trials are likely to remain the most common approach to moving a clinical intervention through from efficacy research to public health impact, judicious use of the proposed hybrid designs could speed the translation of research findings into routine practice.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                101485942
                36077
                Expert Rev Hematol
                Expert Rev Hematol
                Expert review of hematology
                1747-4086
                1747-4094
                15 April 2024
                March 2023
                07 May 2024
                : 16
                : sup1
                : 87-106
                Affiliations
                [a ]Division of Blood Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
                [b ]Center for Inherited Blood Disorders, Western States Regional Hemophilia Network, Orange, California, USA
                [c ]Los Angeles Orthopaedic Hemophilia Treatment Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
                [d ]Boston Hemophilia Center, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                [e ]Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                [f ]American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network, Rochester, New York, USA
                [g ]Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
                [h ]Hematology Utilization Group Study (HUGS), University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
                [i ]Patient Reported Outcomes, Burdens and Experiences (PROBE), Washington, DC, USA
                [j ]The Oregon Health & Science University-Portland State University School of Public Health, Portland, Oregon, USA
                [k ]Hemostasis and Thrombosis Program, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
                [i ]Hemophilia Foundation of Southern California, Pasadena, California, USA
                [m ]MSU Center of Bleeding and Clotting Disorders, Department Pediatrics and Human Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
                [n ]Department of Pediatrics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
                [o ]Mountain States Regional Hemophilia Network, Portland, Oregon, USA
                [p ]National Hemophilia Foundation, New York, New York, USA
                [q ]Rush Hemophilia and Thrombophilia Treatment Center, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
                [r ]Institute for Policy Advancement, Washington, DC, USA
                [s ]Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
                [t ]Genentech, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
                [u ]University of California San Francisco Hemophilia Treatment Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
                [v ]Patient Author, Lived Experience Expert, Chicago, Illinois, USA
                [w ]Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA
                [x ]Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center, Division of Hematology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA
                Author notes

                Author contributions

                JRB, TWB, and VRB led the working group recruitment, organization, discussions, and analysis. All authors contributed to the analysis and deliberations. JRB, TWB, and VRB led manuscript preparation, all authors offered input and contributed to revisions of the manuscript, approved the final version to be published, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. EV, MK, MWS, and RGC led the writing of the Plain Language Summary and LEE Perspective sections. The contents are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement, by CDC/HHS, or the US Government.

                CONTACT Vanessa R. Byams ver0@ 123456cdc.gov Division of Blood Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy, MS S106-3, Atlanta, GA 30341-3717, USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7700-2667
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7850-0027
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4100-7826
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7904-3377
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6859-6432
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9226-2347
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9372-3184
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6110-0257
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0934-0680
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4416-3031
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1954-4385
                Article
                HHSPA1972679
                10.1080/17474086.2023.2183836
                11075128
                36920863
                6ef771de-4016-4f3a-8151-68d2cd958682

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

                History
                Categories
                Article

                community-based,participatory research,diversity,equity,inclusion,health equity,health services research,implementation science,inherited bleeding disorders,national hemophilia,foundation,public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log
                scite_

                Similar content26

                Cited by14

                Most referenced authors1,290