Integration of Women Veterans into VA Quality Improvement Research Efforts: What Researchers Need to Know

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and other federal agencies require funded researchers to include women in their studies. Historically, many researchers have indicated they will include women in proportion to their VA representation or pointed to their numerical minority as justification for exclusion. However, women’s participation in the military—currently 14% of active military—is rapidly changing veteran demographics, with women among the fastest growing segments of new VA users. These changes will require researchers to meet the challenge of finding ways to adequately represent women veterans for meaningful analysis. We describe women veterans’ health and health-care use, note how VA care is organized to meet their needs, report gender differences in quality, highlight national plans for women veterans’ quality improvement, and discuss VA women’s health research. We then discuss challenges and potential solutions for increasing representation of women veterans in VA research, including steps for implementation research

Racial, Ethnic, and Rural Disparities in US Veteran COVID-19 Vaccine Rates

Background: Race, ethnicity, and rurality-related disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine uptake have been documented in the United States (US). Objective: We determined whether these disparities existed among patients at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the largest healthcare system in the US. Design, Settings, Participants, Measurements: Using VA Corporate Data Warehouse data, we included 5,871,438 patients (9.4% women) with at least one primary care visit in 2019 in a retrospective cohort study. Each patient was assigned a single race/ethnicity, which were mutually exclusive, self-reported categories. Rurality was based on 2019 home address at the zip code level. Our primary outcome was time-to-first COVID-19 vaccination between December 15, 2020-June 15, 2021. Additional covariates included age (in years), sex, geographic region (North Atlantic, Midwest, Southeast, Pacific, Continental), smoking status (current, former, never), Charlson Comorbidity Index (based on ≥1 inpatient or two outpatient ICD codes), service connection (any/none, using standardized VA-cutoffs for disability compensation), and influenza vaccination in 2019-2020 (yes/no). Results: Compared with unvaccinated patients, those vaccinated (n=3,238,532; 55.2%) were older (mean age in years vaccinated=66.3, (standard deviation=14.4) vs. unvaccinated=57.7, (18.0), p<.0001)). They were more likely to identify as Black (18.2% vs. 16.1%, p<.0001), Hispanic (7.0% vs. 6.6% p<.0001), or Asian American/Pacific Islander (AA/PI) (2.0% vs. 1.7%, P<.0001). In addition, they were more likely to reside in urban settings (68.0% vs. 62.8, p<.0001). Relative to non-Hispanic White urban Veterans, the reference group for race/ethnicity-urban/rural hazard ratios reported, all urban race/ethnicity groups were associated with increased likelihood for vaccination except American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) groups. Urban Black groups were 12% more likely (Hazard Ratio (HR)=1.12 [CI 1.12-1.13]) and rural Black groups were 6% more likely to receive a first vaccination (HR=1.06 [1.05-1.06]) relative to white urban groups. Urban Hispanic, AA/PI and Mixed groups were more likely to receive vaccination while rural members of these groups were less likely (Hispanic: Urban HR=1.17 [1.16-1.18], Rural HR=0.98 [0.97-0.99]; AA/PI: Urban HR=1.22 [1.21-1.23], Rural HR=0.86 [0.84-0.88]). Rural White Veterans were 21% less likely to receive an initial vaccine compared with urban White Veterans (HR=0.79 [0.78-0.79]). AI/AN groups were less likely to receive vaccination regardless of rurality: Urban HR=0.93 [0.91-0.95]; AI/AN-Rural HR=0.76 [0.74-0.78]. Conclusions: Urban Black, Hispanic, and AA/PI Veterans were more likely than their urban White counterparts to receive a first vaccination; all rural race/ethnicity groups except Black patients had lower likelihood for vaccination compared with urban White patients. A better understanding of disparities and rural outreach will inform equitable vaccine distribution

Enhancing Mental and Physical Health of Women through Engagement and Retention (EMPOWER): a protocol for a program of research

Abstract Background The Enhancing Mental and Physical health of Women through Engagement and Retention or EMPOWER program represents a partnership with the US Department of Veterans Health Administration (VA) Health Service Research and Development investigators and the VA Office of Women’s Health, National Center for Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Primary Care-Mental Health Integration Program Office, Women’s Mental Health Services, and the Office of Patient Centered Care and Cultural Transformation. EMPOWER includes three projects designed to improve women Veterans’ engagement and retention in evidence-based care for high-priority health conditions, i.e., prediabetes, cardiovascular, and mental health. Methods/Design The three proposed projects will be conducted in VA primary care clinics that serve women Veterans including general primary care and women’s health clinics. The first project is a 1-year quality improvement project targeting diabetes prevention. Two multi-site research implementation studies will focus on cardiovascular risk prevention and collaborative care to address women Veterans’ mental health treatment needs respectively. All projects will use the evidence-based Replicating Effective Programs (REP) implementation strategy, enhanced with multi-stakeholder engagement and complexity theory. Mixed methods implementation evaluations will focus on investigating primary implementation outcomes of adoption, acceptability, feasibility, and reach. Program-wide organizational-, provider-, and patient-level measures and tools will be utilized to enhance synergy, productivity, and impact. Both implementation research studies will use a non-randomized stepped wedge design. Discussion EMPOWER represents a coherent program of women’s health implementation research and quality improvement that utilizes cross-project implementation strategies and evaluation methodology. The EMPOWER Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) will constitute a major milestone for realizing women Veterans’ engagement and empowerment in the VA system. EMPOWER QUERI will be conducted in close partnership with key VA operations partners, such as the VA Office of Women’s Health, to disseminate and spread the programs nationally. Trial registration The two implementation research studies described in this protocol have been registered as required: Facilitating Cardiovascular Risk Screening and Risk Reduction in Women Veterans: Trial registration NCT02991534 , registered 9 December 2016. Implementation of Tailored Collaborative Care for Women Veterans: Trial registration NCT02950961 , registered 21 October 2016

Racial/Ethnic Variations in Physician Recommendations for Cardiac Revascularization

Objectives. We sought to examine whether physician recommendations for cardiac revascularization vary according to patient race. Methods. We studied patients scheduled for coronary angiography at 2 hospitals, one public and one private, between November 1997 and June 1999. Cardiologists were interviewed regarding their recommendations for cardiac resvacularization. Results. African American patients were less likely than Whites to be recommended for revascularization at the public hospital (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.12, 0.77) but not at the private hospital (adjusted OR = 1.69; 95% CI = 0.69, 4.14). Conclusions. Physician recommendations for cardiac revascularization vary by patient race. Further studies are needed to examine physician bias as a factor in racial disparities in cardiac care and outcomes

A Pragmatic Approach to Guide Implementation Evaluation Research: Strategy Mapping for Complex Interventions

IntroductionGreater specification of implementation strategies is a challenge for implementation science, but there is little guidance for delineating the use of multiple strategies involved in complex interventions. The Cardiovascular (CV) Toolkit project entails implementation of a toolkit designed to reduce CV risk by increasing women’s engagement in appropriate services. The CV Toolkit project follows an enhanced version of Replicating Effective Programs (REP), an evidence-based implementation strategy, to implement the CV Toolkit across four phases: pre-conditions, pre-implementation, implementation, and maintenance and evolution. Our current objective is to describe a method for mapping implementation strategies used in real time as part of the CV Toolkit project. This method supports description of the timing and content of bundled strategies and provides a structured process for developing a plan for implementation evaluation.MethodsWe conducted a process of strategy mapping to apply Proctor and colleagues’ rubric for specification of implementation strategies, constructing a matrix in which we identified each implementation strategy, its conceptual group, and the corresponding REP phase(s) in which it occurs. For each strategy, we also specified the actors involved, actions undertaken, action targets, dose of the implementation strategy, and anticipated outcome addressed. We iteratively refined the matrix with the implementation team, including use of simulation to provide initial validation.ResultsMapping revealed patterns in the timing of implementation strategies within REP phases. Most implementation strategies involving the development of stakeholder interrelationships and training and educating stakeholders were introduced during the pre-conditions or pre-implementation phases. Strategies introduced in the maintenance and evolution phase emphasized communication, re-examination, and audit and feedback. In addition to its value for producing valid and reliable process evaluation data, mapping implementation strategies has informed development of a pragmatic blueprint for implementation and longitudinal analyses and evaluation activities.DiscussionWe update recent recommendations on specification of implementation strategies by considering the implications for multi-strategy frameworks and propose an approach for mapping the use of implementation strategies within complex, multi-level interventions, in support of rigorous evaluation. Developing pragmatic tools to aid in operationalizing the conduct of implementation and evaluation activities is essential to enacting sound implementation research

Improving care of chronic conditions for women veterans: identifying opportunities for comparative effectiveness research

This article aims to critically analyze research focused on the findings for five chronic conditions: chronic pain, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, HIV and cancer among women veterans to identify opportunities for comparative effectiveness research. We provide a descriptive analysis from the relevant articles in prior systematic reviews. In order to identify potential gaps in research for these specific conditions, we also conducted a literature search to highlight studies focusing on women veterans published since the last systematic review. While the scientific knowledge base has grown for these chronic conditions among women veterans, the vast majority of the published literature remains descriptive and/or observational, with only a few studies examining gender differences and even fewer clinical trials. There is a need to conduct comparative effectiveness research on chronic conditions among women veterans to improve health and healthcare

A Pragmatic Approach to Guide Implementation Evaluation Research: Strategy Mapping for Complex Interventions.

IntroductionGreater specification of implementation strategies is a challenge for implementation science, but there is little guidance for delineating the use of multiple strategies involved in complex interventions. The Cardiovascular (CV) Toolkit project entails implementation of a toolkit designed to reduce CV risk by increasing women's engagement in appropriate services. The CV Toolkit project follows an enhanced version of Replicating Effective Programs (REP), an evidence-based implementation strategy, to implement the CV Toolkit across four phases: pre-conditions, pre-implementation, implementation, and maintenance and evolution. Our current objective is to describe a method for mapping implementation strategies used in real time as part of the CV Toolkit project. This method supports description of the timing and content of bundled strategies and provides a structured process for developing a plan for implementation evaluation.MethodsWe conducted a process of strategy mapping to apply Proctor and colleagues' rubric for specification of implementation strategies, constructing a matrix in which we identified each implementation strategy, its conceptual group, and the corresponding REP phase(s) in which it occurs. For each strategy, we also specified the actors involved, actions undertaken, action targets, dose of the implementation strategy, and anticipated outcome addressed. We iteratively refined the matrix with the implementation team, including use of simulation to provide initial validation.ResultsMapping revealed patterns in the timing of implementation strategies within REP phases. Most implementation strategies involving the development of stakeholder interrelationships and training and educating stakeholders were introduced during the pre-conditions or pre-implementation phases. Strategies introduced in the maintenance and evolution phase emphasized communication, re-examination, and audit and feedback. In addition to its value for producing valid and reliable process evaluation data, mapping implementation strategies has informed development of a pragmatic blueprint for implementation and longitudinal analyses and evaluation activities.DiscussionWe update recent recommendations on specification of implementation strategies by considering the implications for multi-strategy frameworks and propose an approach for mapping the use of implementation strategies within complex, multi-level interventions, in support of rigorous evaluation. Developing pragmatic tools to aid in operationalizing the conduct of implementation and evaluation activities is essential to enacting sound implementation research