Anti-Racism Methods for Big Data Research: Lessons Learned from the HIV Testing, Linkage, & Retention in Care (HIV TLR) Study.

Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP) contributes three functional elements to health equity studies: a race conscious orientation; an antiracism lexicon based on Critical Race Theory (CRT); and an integrated, reflexive approach. Few big data studies employ all three functional elements. Therefore, this article describes the application of PHCRP to the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Testing, Linkage and Retention in care (HIV TLR) study (N=3,476,741), which connects multiple large datasets to electronic medical records to examine contextual determinants of racial/ethnic disparities in HIV care continuum outcomes in southern California. As HIV TLR demonstrates, PHCRP's innovative tools and strategies help big data research maintain fidelity to CRT

Understanding diagnostic processes in emergency departments: a mixed methods case study protocol.

IntroductionDiagnostic processes in the emergency department (ED) involve multiple interactions among individuals who interface with information systems to access and record information. A better understanding of diagnostic processes is needed to mitigate errors. This paper describes a study protocol to map diagnostic processes in the ED as a foundation for developing future error mitigation strategies.Methods and analysisThis study of an adult and a paediatric academic ED uses a prospective mixed methods case study design informed by an ED-specific diagnostic decision-making model (the modified ED-National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) model) and two cognitive theories (dual process theory and distributed cognition). Data sources include audio recordings of patient and care team interactions, electronic health record data, observer field notes and stakeholder interviews. Multiple qualitative analysis methods will be used to explore diagnostic processes in situ, including systems information flow, human-human and human-system interactions and contextual factors influencing cognition. The study has three parts. Part 1 involves prospective field observations of patients with undifferentiated symptoms at high risk for diagnostic error, where each patient is followed throughout the entire care delivery process. Part 2 involves observing individual care team providers over a 4-hour window to capture their diagnostic workflow, team coordination and communication across multiple patients. Part 3 uses interviews with key stakeholders to understand different perspectives on the diagnostic process, as well as perceived strengths and vulnerabilities, in order to enrich the ED-NASEM diagnostic model.Ethics and disseminationThe University of Michigan Institutional Review Board approved this study, HUM00156261. This foundational work will help identify strengths and vulnerabilities in diagnostic processes. Further, it will inform the future development and testing of patient, provider and systems-level interventions for mitigating error and improving patient safety in these and other EDs. The work will be disseminated through journal publications and presentations at national and international meetings

Understanding diagnostic processes in emergency departments: a mixed methods case study protocol.

IntroductionDiagnostic processes in the emergency department (ED) involve multiple interactions among individuals who interface with information systems to access and record information. A better understanding of diagnostic processes is needed to mitigate errors. This paper describes a study protocol to map diagnostic processes in the ED as a foundation for developing future error mitigation strategies.Methods and analysisThis study of an adult and a paediatric academic ED uses a prospective mixed methods case study design informed by an ED-specific diagnostic decision-making model (the modified ED-National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) model) and two cognitive theories (dual process theory and distributed cognition). Data sources include audio recordings of patient and care team interactions, electronic health record data, observer field notes and stakeholder interviews. Multiple qualitative analysis methods will be used to explore diagnostic processes in situ, including systems information flow, human-human and human-system interactions and contextual factors influencing cognition. The study has three parts. Part 1 involves prospective field observations of patients with undifferentiated symptoms at high risk for diagnostic error, where each patient is followed throughout the entire care delivery process. Part 2 involves observing individual care team providers over a 4-hour window to capture their diagnostic workflow, team coordination and communication across multiple patients. Part 3 uses interviews with key stakeholders to understand different perspectives on the diagnostic process, as well as perceived strengths and vulnerabilities, in order to enrich the ED-NASEM diagnostic model.Ethics and disseminationThe University of Michigan Institutional Review Board approved this study, HUM00156261. This foundational work will help identify strengths and vulnerabilities in diagnostic processes. Further, it will inform the future development and testing of patient, provider and systems-level interventions for mitigating error and improving patient safety in these and other EDs. The work will be disseminated through journal publications and presentations at national and international meetings

A Participatory, Mixed Methods Approach to Define and Measure Partnership Synergy in Long-standing Equity-focused CBPR Partnerships.

Understanding what contributes to success of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships is essential to ensuring their effectiveness in addressing health disparities and health inequities. Synergy, the concept of accomplishing more together than separately, is central to partnership effectiveness. However, synergy specific to long-standing, equity-focused CBPR partnerships has not been closely examined. To address this, we defined and developed measures of partnership synergy as one dimension of a participatory mixed methods study, Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success (MAPS), to develop a validated instrument to measure success in long-standing CBPR partnerships. Framed by a conceptual model and scoping literature review, we conducted in-depth interviews with a national panel of academic and community experts in CBPR and equity to develop partnership synergy measures. Items were refined through an iterative process, including a three-stage Delphi process, comparison with existing measures, cognitive interviews, and pilot testing. Seven questionnaire items were developed to measure synergy arising from equitable partnerships bringing together diverse partners across power differences to promote equity. Defining and measuring synergy in the context of long-standing partnership success is central to understanding the role of synergy in collaborative approaches to research and action and can strengthen CBPR partnerships to promote healthy communities and advance health equity

A Participatory, Mixed Methods Approach to Define and Measure Partnership Synergy in Long- standing Equity- focused CBPR Partnerships

Understanding what contributes to success of community- based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships is essential to ensuring their effectiveness in addressing health disparities and health inequities. Synergy, the concept of accomplishing more together than separately, is central to partnership effectiveness. However, synergy specific to long- standing, equity- focused CBPR partnerships has not been closely examined. To address this, we defined and developed measures of partnership synergy as one dimension of a participatory mixed methods study, Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success (MAPS), to develop a validated instrument to measure success in long- standing CBPR partnerships. Framed by a conceptual model and scoping literature review, we conducted in- depth interviews with a national panel of academic and community experts in CBPR and equity to develop partnership synergy measures. Items were refined through an iterative process, including a three- stage Delphi process, comparison with existing measures, cognitive interviews, and pilot testing. Seven questionnaire items were developed to measure synergy arising from equitable partnerships bringing together diverse partners across power differences to promote equity. Defining and measuring synergy in the context of long- standing partnership success is central to understanding the role of synergy in collaborative approaches to research and action and can strengthen CBPR partnerships to promote healthy communities and advance health equity.HighlightsSynergy- accomplishing more together than alone- is central to effective collaborative partnerships.Measures of synergy specific to long- standing equity- focused CBPR partnerships are lacking.We developed a 7- item measure integrating knowledge from community- academic CBPR and equity experts.Evaluating synergy can strengthen CBPR partnership effectiveness to address health inequities.Fostering synergy will enhance CBPR partnership success to promote community health and equity.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163783/1/ajcp12447_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163783/2/ajcp12447.pd

A Participatory, Mixed Methods Approach to Define and Measure Partnership Synergy in Long-standing Equity-focused CBPR Partnerships.

Understanding what contributes to success of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships is essential to ensuring their effectiveness in addressing health disparities and health inequities. Synergy, the concept of accomplishing more together than separately, is central to partnership effectiveness. However, synergy specific to long-standing, equity-focused CBPR partnerships has not been closely examined. To address this, we defined and developed measures of partnership synergy as one dimension of a participatory mixed methods study, Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success (MAPS), to develop a validated instrument to measure success in long-standing CBPR partnerships. Framed by a conceptual model and scoping literature review, we conducted in-depth interviews with a national panel of academic and community experts in CBPR and equity to develop partnership synergy measures. Items were refined through an iterative process, including a three-stage Delphi process, comparison with existing measures, cognitive interviews, and pilot testing. Seven questionnaire items were developed to measure synergy arising from equitable partnerships bringing together diverse partners across power differences to promote equity. Defining and measuring synergy in the context of long-standing partnership success is central to understanding the role of synergy in collaborative approaches to research and action and can strengthen CBPR partnerships to promote healthy communities and advance health equity

A Participatory, Mixed Methods Approach to Define and Measure Partnership Synergy in Long‐standing Equity‐focused CBPR Partnerships

Understanding what contributes to success of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships is essential to ensuring their effectiveness in addressing health disparities and health inequities. Synergy, the concept of accomplishing more together than separately, is central to partnership effectiveness. However, synergy specific to long-standing, equity-focused CBPR partnerships has not been closely examined. To address this, we defined and developed measures of partnership synergy as one dimension of a participatory mixed methods study, Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success (MAPS), to develop a validated instrument to measure success in long-standing CBPR partnerships. Framed by a conceptual model and scoping literature review, we conducted in-depth interviews with a national panel of academic and community experts in CBPR and equity to develop partnership synergy measures. Items were refined through an iterative process, including a three-stage Delphi process, comparison with existing measures, cognitive interviews, and pilot testing. Seven questionnaire items were developed to measure synergy arising from equitable partnerships bringing together diverse partners across power differences to promote equity. Defining and measuring synergy in the context of long-standing partnership success is central to understanding the role of synergy in collaborative approaches to research and action and can strengthen CBPR partnerships to promote healthy communities and advance health equity