Search

Reducing cardiovascular disease disparities will require a concerted, focused effort to better adopt evidence-based interventions, in particular, those that address social determinants of health, in historically marginalized populations (ie, communities excluded on the basis of social identifiers like race, ethnicity, and social class and subject to inequitable distribution of social, economic, physical, and psychological resources). Implementation science is centered around stakeholder engagement and, by virtue of its reliance on theoretical frameworks, is custom built for addressing research-to-practice gaps. However, little guidance exists for how best to leverage implementation science to promote cardiovascular health equity. This American Heart Association scientific statement was commissioned to define implementation science with a cardiovascular health equity lens and to evaluate implementation research that targets cardiovascular inequities. We provide a 4-step roadmap and checklist with critical equity considerations for selecting/adapting evidence-based practices, assessing barriers and facilitators to implementation, selecting/using/adapting implementation strategies, and evaluating implementation success. Informed by our roadmap, we examine several organizational, community, policy, and multisetting interventions and implementation strategies developed to reduce cardiovascular disparities. We highlight gaps in implementation science research to date aimed at achieving cardiovascular health equity, including lack of stakeholder engagement, rigorous mixed methods, and equity-informed theoretical frameworks. We provide several key suggestions, including the need for improved conceptualization and inclusion of social and structural determinants of health in implementation science, and the use of adaptive, hybrid effectiveness designs. In addition, we call for more rigorous examination of multilevel interventions and implementation strategies with the greatest potential for reducing both primary and secondary cardiovascular disparities.

BACKGROUNDThe medical-legal partnership (MLP) is an innovative and proven-effective approach to addressing health-harming social needs that have legal remedies (e.g., housing concerns, intimate partner violence). Yet, few MLPs exist within outpatient primary care practices and in rural settings.METHODSWe describe the impact of an MLP between Pisgah Legal Services and the Mountain Area Health Education Center, which serves rural North Carolina counties, over a 24-month period.RESULTSOverall, 629 cases were referred to the MLP. Three hundred seventy cases were opened and investigated by a lawyer. Three hundred sixty-four cases were closed (i.e., a resolution was reached), yielding 808 outcomes, with an average of 2.2 outcomes per case. Domestic violence/family law and housing were the main socio-legal concerns addressed by the MLP. Eighty-six (24%) of cases included at least 1 representation outcome; the success rate in representation cases was 90%.LIMITATIONSWe did not examine the impact of the MLP on patient health outcomes, nor did we have comparative outcomes data for similar individuals with unmet social needs but who did not receive MLP services.CONCLUSIONSThe MLP was successful in helping to address multiple social needs faced by patients that contribute to worse health status and outcomes. Monetary benefits to patients were $309,902 plus an additional $174,733 from tax returns and the Earned Income Tax Credit. The MLP lawyer provided education and training to support clinicians, learners, and community organizations. These data highlight the benefits of collaboration between health professionals and lawyers in advancing equity by addressing unmet social needs.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The past decade has seen increased emphasis on the importance of advancing health equity and addressing the social, political, and economic drivers of health inequities. Achieving health equity requires moving beyond health care to address the social and economic conditions and the political determinants of these conditions that drive health within communities [1]. Key to advancing equity is embracing an anchor mission strategy and forming partnerships between “anchor institutions” and local organizations to invest in the economic well-being of communities [2]. Anchor institutions are nonprofit or public entities such as hospitals and universities that have the ability to align and deploy their institutional resources—such as hiring, purchasing, and investing—with the needs of the local communities they serve [3].

Many academic institutions strive to promote more diverse and inclusive campuses for faculty, staff, and students. As part of this effort, these institutions seek to include individuals from historically underrepresented groups (URGs)—such as women, people from racial/ethnic minority populations, persons with disabilities—on committees and in other service activities. However, given the low number of faculty members from URGs at many institutions, these faculty members tend to receive more requests to provide service to the institution or department (e.g., serving on committees, mentoring) than their counterparts from majority groups. Faculty members from URGs, especially early-career faculty, thus risk becoming overburdened with providing service at the expense of working on other scholarly activities required for promotion and tenure (i.e., conducting research, publishing). Although many scholars and others have written about this “minority tax” and its implications for early-career faculty from underrepresented racial/ethnic minority groups, fewer have published about how this tax extends beyond racial/ethnic minorities to women and persons with disabilities. Further, the literature provides scant practical advice on how to avoid overburdening early-career faculty from URGs. Here, a group of multidisciplinary early- and mid-career faculty members from URGs seek to provide their peers from URGs with practical strategies for both evaluating the appropriateness of service requests and declining those that are not a good fit. The authors also provide institutional leaders with actionable recommendations to prevent early-career faculty from URGs from becoming overburdened with service.

Health literacy is the degree to which individuals are able to access and process basic health information and services and thereby participate in health-related decisions. Limited health literacy is highly prevalent in the United States and is strongly associated with patient morbidity, mortality, healthcare use, and costs. The objectives of this American Heart Association scientific statement are (1) to summarize the relevance of health literacy to cardiovascular health; (2) to present the adverse associations of health literacy with cardiovascular risk factors, conditions, and treatments; (3) to suggest strategies that address barriers imposed by limited health literacy on the management and prevention of cardiovascular disease; (4) to demonstrate the contributions of health literacy to health disparities, given its association with social determinants of health; and (5) to propose future directions for how health literacy can be integrated into the American Heart Association’s mandate to advance cardiovascular treatment and research, thereby improving patient care and public health. Inadequate health literacy is a barrier to the American Heart Association meeting its 2020 Impact Goals, and this statement articulates the rationale to anticipate and address the adverse cardiovascular effects associated with health literacy.

Calls-to-action in health research have described a need to improve research on race, ethnicity, and structural racism. Well-established cohort studies typically lack access to novel structural and social determinants of health (SSDOH) or precise race and ethnicity categorization, contributing to a loss of rigor to conduct informative analyses and a gap in prospective evidence on the role of structural racism in health outcomes. We propose and implement methods that prospective cohort studies can use to begin to rectify this, using the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) cohort as a case study. To do so, we evaluated the quality, precision, and representativeness of race, ethnicity, and SSDOH data compared with the target US population and operationalized methods to quantify structural determinants in cohort studies. Harmonizing racial and ethnic categorization to the current standards set by the Office of Management and Budget improved measurement precision, aligned with published recommendations, disaggregated groups, decreased missing data, and decreased participants reporting “some other race”. Disaggregation revealed sub-group disparities in SSDOH, including a greater proportion of Black-Latina (35.2%) and AIAN-Latina (33.3%) WHI participants with income below the US median compared with White-Latina (42.5%) participants. We found similarities in the racial and ethnic patterning of SSDOH disparities between WHI and US women but less disparity overall in WHI. Despite higher individual-level advantage in WHI, racial disparities in neighborhood resources were similar to the US, reflecting structural racism. Median neighborhood income was comparable between Black WHI ($39,000) and US ($34,700) women. WHI SSDOH-associated outcomes may be generalizable on the basis of comparing across race and ethnicity but may quantitatively (but not qualitatively) underestimate US effect sizes. This paper takes steps towards data justice by implementing methods to make visible hidden health disparity groups and operationalizing structural-level determinants in prospective cohort studies, a first step to establishing causality in health disparities research.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.