Search results

<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hypertension is the leading global risk for mortality. Poor treatment and control of hypertension in low- and middle-income countries is due to several reasons, including insufficient human resources. Nurse management of hypertension is a novel approach to address the human resource challenge. However, specific barriers and facilitators to this strategy are not known. </p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate barriers and facilitators to nurse management of hypertensive patients in rural western Kenya, using a qualitative research approach. </p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six key informant interviews (five men, one woman) and seven focus group discussions (24 men, 33 women) were conducted among physicians, clinical officers, nurses, support staff, patients, and community leaders. Content analysis was performed using Atlas.ti 7.0, using deductive and inductive codes that were then grouped into themes representing barriers and facilitators. Ranking of barriers and facilitators was performed using triangulation of density of participant responses from the focus group discussions and key informant interviews, as well as investigator assessments using a two-round Delphi exercise. <strong></strong></p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified a total of 23 barriers and nine facilitators to nurse management of hypertension, spanning the following categories of factors: health systems, environmental, nurse-specific, patient-specific, emotional, and community. The Delphi resultswere generally consistent with the findings from the content analysis. <strong></strong></p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Nurse management of hypertension is a potentially feasible strategy to address the human resource challenge of hypertension control in low-resource settings. However, successful implementation will be contingent upon addressing barriers such as access to medications, quality of care, training of nurses, health education, and stigma. <em>Ethn Dis. </em>2016;26(3):315-322; doi:10.18865/ed.26.3.315. </p>

Development and implementation of effective, sustainable, and scalable interventions that advance equity could be propelled by innovative and inclusive partnerships. Readied catalytic frameworks that foster communication, collaboration, a shared vision, and transformative translational research across scientific and non-scientific divides are needed to foster rapid generation of novel solutions to address and ultimately eliminate disparities. To achieve this, we transformed and expanded a community-academic board into a translational science board with members from public, academic and private sectors. Rooted in team science, diverse board experts formed topic-specific "accelerators", tasked with collaborating to rapidly generate new ideas, questions, approaches, and projects comprising patients, advocates, clinicians, researchers, funders, public health and industry leaders. We began with four accelerators—digital health, big data, genomics and environmental health—and were rapidly able to respond to funding opportunities, transform new ideas into clinical and community programs, generate new, accessible, actionable data, and more efficiently and effectively conduct research. This innovative model has the power to maximize research quality and efficiency, improve patient care and engagement, optimize data democratization and dissemination among target populations, contribute to policy, and lead to systems changes needed to address the root causes of disparities.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of genome-scale sequencing in clinical care has significant challenges: the technology is highly dimensional with many kinds of potential results, results interpretation and delivery require expertise and coordination across multiple medical specialties, clinical utility may be uncertain, and there may be broader familial or societal implications beyond the individual participant. Transdisciplinary consortia and collaborative team science are well poised to address these challenges. However, understanding the complex web of organizational, institutional, physical, environmental, technologic, and other political and societal factors that influence the effectiveness of consortia is understudied. We describe our experience working in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, a multi-institutional translational genomics consortium. METHODS: A key aspect of the CSER consortium was the juxtaposition of site-specific measures with the need to identify consensus measures related to clinical utility and to create a core set of harmonized measures. During this harmonization process, we sought to minimize participant burden, accommodate project-specific choices, and use validated measures that allow data sharing. RESULTS: Identifying platforms to ensure swift communication between teams and management of materials and data were essential to our harmonization efforts. Funding agencies can help consortia by clarifying key study design elements across projects during the proposal preparation phase and by providing a framework for data sharing data across participating projects. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, time and resources must be devoted to developing and implementing collaborative practices as preparatory work at the beginning of project timelines to improve the effectiveness of research consortia.