Background Health disparities are differences in health or health care between groups based on social, economic, and/or environmental disadvantage. Disparity research often follows three steps: detecting (Phase 1), understanding (Phase 2), and reducing (Phase 3), disparities. While disparities have narrowed over time, many remain. Objectives We argue that implementation science could enhance disparities research by broadening the scope of Phase 2 studies and offering rigorous methods to test disparity-reducing implementation strategies in Phase 3 studies. Methods We briefly review the focus of Phase 2 and Phase 3 disparities research. We then provide a decision tree and case examples to illustrate how implementation science frameworks and research designs could further enhance disparity research. Results Most health disparities research emphasizes patient and provider factors as predominant mechanisms underlying disparities. Applying implementation science frameworks like the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research could help disparities research widen its scope in Phase 2 studies and, in turn, develop broader disparities-reducing implementation strategies in Phase 3 studies. Many Phase 3 studies of disparity reducing implementation strategies are similar to case studies, whose designs are not able to fully test causality. Implementation science research designs offer rigorous methods that could accelerate the pace at which equity is achieved in real world practice. Conclusions Disparities can be considered a “special case” of implementation challenges—when evidence-based clinical interventions are delivered to, and received by, vulnerable populations at lower rates. Bringing together health disparities research and implementation science could advance equity more than either could achieve on their own.

When an individual in a close relationship is diagnosed with a chronic illness, coping can be the responsibility of the patient, or couple-members can cope communally. Communal coping reflects a shared appraisal of a stressor (our problem instead of my problem) and collaborative efforts to address the stressor. The current study examined whether patients’ and partners’ communal coping levels were associated with relational and health functioning among 70 couples in which one member was recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. We assessed explicit communal coping with self-reported “inclusion of the other in the self” in regard to diabetes management and implicit communal coping with first person plural pronoun usage during a diabetes discussion. We also assessed patient reports of support received from partners, patient and partner psychological distress, and patient self-care behavior. Results showed that patient explicit communal coping was related to better patient relationship quality and greater support receipt from partners. Patient and partner explicit communal coping also were related to reduced partner distress but not patient distress. Instead, partner implicit communal coping was related to reduced patient distress. Most noteworthy, partner implicit communal coping was related to better patient self-care behavior. These results suggest that communal coping may be beneficial for both relationships and health, but that the effects of explicit measures differ from those of implicit measures. Patients might benefit especially from partner communal coping efforts that are less obvious.

Women experience gender-based challenges during surgical training. Further investigation is needed to determine how these experiences affect professional development.