No abstract

BACKGROUND: Enhancing patient-centered care and shared decision making (SDM) has become a national priority as a means of engaging patients in their care, improving treatment adherence, and enhancing health outcomes. Relatively little is known about the healthcare experiences or shared decision making among racial/ethnic minorities who also identify as being LGBT. The purpose of this paper is to understand how race, sexual orientation and gender identity can simultaneously influence SDM among AfricanAmerican LGBT persons, and to propose a model of SDM between such patients and their healthcare providers. METHODS: We reviewed key constructs necessary for understanding SDM among African-American LGBT persons, which guided our systematic literature review. Eligible studies for the review included English-language studies of adults (≥ 19 y/o) in North America, with a focus on LGBT persons who were African-American/black (i.e., > 50 % of the study population) or included sub-analyses by sexual orientation/gender identity and race. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases using MESH terms and keywords related to shared decision making, communication quality (e.g., trust, bias), African-Americans, and LGBT persons. Additional references were identified by manual reviews of peer-reviewed journals' tables of contents and key papers' references. RESULTS: We identified 2298 abstracts, three of which met the inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, one was cross-sectional and two were qualitative; one study involved transgender women (91 % minorities, 65 % of whom were African-Americans), and two involved African-American men who have sex with men (MSM). All of the studies focused on HIV infection. Sexual orientation and gender identity were patient-reported factors that negatively impacted patient/provider relationships and SDM. Engaging in SDM helped some patients overcome normative beliefs about clinical encounters. In this paper, we present a conceptual model for understanding SDM in African-American LGBT persons, wherein multiple systems of social stratification (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation) influence patient and provider perceptions, behaviors, and shared decision making. DISCUSSION: Few studies exist that explore SDM among African-American LGBT persons, and no interventions were identified in our systematic review. Thus, we are unable to draw conclusions about the effect size of SDM among this population on health outcomes. Qualitative work suggests that race, sexual orientation and gender work collectively to enhance perceptions of discrimination and decrease SDM among African-American LGBT persons. More research is needed to obtain a comprehensive understanding of shared decision making and subsequent health outcomes among African-Americans along the entire spectrum of gender and sexual orientation.

Implementation science has great potential to improve the health of communities and individuals who are not achieving health equity. However, implementation science can exacerbate health disparities if its use is biased toward entities that already have the highest capacities for delivering evidence-based interventions. In this article, we ex­amine several methodologic approaches for conducting implementation research to ad­vance equity both in our understanding of what historically disadvantaged populations would need—what we call scientific equi­ty—and how this  knowledge can be applied to produce health equity. We focus on rapid ways to gain knowledge on how to engage, design research, act, share, and sustain successes in partnership with communities. We begin by describing a principle-driven partnership process between community members and implementation researchers to overcome disparities. We then review three innovative implementation method paradigms to improve scientific and health equity and provide examples of each. The first paradigm involves making efficient use of existing data by applying epidemiologic and simulation modeling to understand what drives disparities and how they can be overcome. The second paradigm involves designing new research studies that include, but do not focus exclusively on, popula­tions experiencing disparities in health domains such as cardiovascular disease and co-occurring mental health conditions. The third paradigm involves implementation research that focuses exclusively on popula­tions who have experienced high levels of disparities. To date, our scientific enterprise has invested disproportionately in research that fails to eliminate health disparities. The implementation research methods discussed here hold promise for overcoming barri­ers and achieving health equity.Ethn Dis. 2019;29(Suppl 1):83-92; doi:10.18865/ed.29.S1.83.

No abstract

Low sensitivity of CDC guidelines and limited AUC of HIRI-MSM and Gilead screening tools are of concern for PrEP implementation among most at risk populations such as YBMSM. Consideration of demographics, local epidemiology, and network factors may better guide identification of clients who could benefit most from PrEP.