Funders of research have an opportunity to advance health equity and social justice by incorporating principles of diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) in their approach to grantmaking. We conducted a pragmatic review to identify opportunities for grantmakers in the health care sector to integrate DEIJ in their funding activities. The resulting framework discusses recommendations within three phases as follows: (1) Organizational Context (i.e., initiate DEIJ efforts within the grantmaking organization, invest in community partnerships, and establish DEIJ goals), (2) Grantmaking Process (i.e., DEIJ-specific practices related to grant design, application, proposal review processes, and support for grantees), and (3) Assessment of Process and Outcomes (i.e., measurement, evaluation, and dissemination to maximize impact of DEIJ efforts). Throughout all grantmaking phases, it is critical to partner with and engage individuals and communities that have been historically marginalized in health care and research. In this article, we describe how adoption of framework practices can leverage grantmaking to advance DEIJ for communities, researchers, and projects.

Systemic racism embedded within the US health care system results in disproportionately worse health outcomes for Black pediatric patients and their caregivers. One meaningful mechanism through which these health disparities persist is through discriminatory treatment and anti-Black bias from clinicians. Strengthening care provided to Black pediatric patients and their caregivers requires that clinicians adopt culturally tailored communication strategies that promote health equity and counter racism. We conducted a scoping review of evidence-based communication practices in the medical literature that improve care for Black pediatric patients. We mapped the specific practices to the Presence 5 for Racial Justice framework and identified cross-cutting themes to describe practices across the five domains. There are three cross-cutting themes that underlie the recommended practices: 1) promote unbiased implementation of clinician communication strategies (eg, providing equitable recommendations for preventive care), 2) tailor care to Black pediatric patients (eg, explore the importance of the family unit), and 3) address racism experienced by Black pediatric patients and their caregivers (eg, acknowledge any previous negative experiences with the health care system). This review highlights communication practices that clinicians can adopt to build trusting relationships, empower Black families, and promote racial justice in clinical care. Future opportunities include expanding to system level change and validating these practices with patients and clinicians.

Importance:Physicians and medical students who desire to build families face significant barriers due to the structure and culture of medicine. Objective:To understand the barriers and facilitators to family building for all people in medicine-not only individuals who can become pregnant-through an open-ended, qualitative analysis of survey responses. Design, Setting, and Participants:This qualitative study used a survey conducted in April and May 2021 with a broad sample of physicians and medical students. Participants were recruited through social media, targeting physician and medical student communities. Physicians (residents, fellows, and physicians in independent practice) and medical students of all gender identities and sexual orientations were included. Informed by a postpositivist approach, coding reliability thematic analysis was performed on 3 open-ended survey questions on family-building experiences (what they would do differently, what advice they have for others, and anything else they wished to share). Main Outcomes and Measures:Identified themes were mapped to the social-ecological model, a model used in public health to examine how a spectrum of factors is associated with health outcomes. Results:A total of 2025 people (1860 [92%] women; 299 [15%] Asian, 151 [8%] Black, and 1303 [64%] White; 1730 [85%] heterosexual; and 1200 [59%] physicians who had completed training) responded to at least 1 of 3 open-ended questions. Themes mapped to social-ecological model levels included: (1) cultural, eg, medical training being at odds with family building; (2) organizational, eg, lack of institutional support for the range of family-building routes; (3) interpersonal, eg, impact of social support on family building; and (4) individual, eg, socioeconomic status and other individual factors that facilitate or inhibit family building. Recommendations to improve family-building experiences include implementing family-building curricula at medical schools, providing adequate parental leave for all physicians and medical students who become parents, and providing insurance coverage for all family-building routes. Conclusions and Relevance:In this qualitative study of physicians and medical students, self-reported barriers to family building were identified at each level of the social-ecological model. Addressing these barriers is critical to creating a more equitable family-building environment for physicians and medical students.

Safekeeping involves transferring individuals from jails to prisons without the presence of a conviction. In North Carolina, safekeeping is used for pregnant people with the aim of providing better prenatal care. We interviewed 14 stakeholders in the safekeeping process including sheriffs, clinicians, advocates, and lawyers. Three key themes emerged: jails' inability to provide care for pregnant individuals; safekeeping as an additional punishment to incarceration; and differing attitudes on the necessity of safekeeping. Participants perceived that while there may be some benefits of safekeeping such as enhanced prenatal care, safekeeping can also lead to worsened conditions for pregnant people experiencing incarceration.

As countries graduate from low-income to middle-income status, many face losses in development assistance for health and must 'transition' to greater domestic funding of their health response. If improperly managed, donor transitions in middle-income countries (MICs) could present significant challenges to global health progress. No prior knowledge synthesis has comprehensively surveyed how donor transitions can affect health systems in MICs. We conducted a scoping review using a structured search strategy across five academic databases and 37 global health donor and think tank websites for literature published between January 1990 and October 2018. We used the World Health Organization health system 'building blocks' framework to thematically synthesize and structure the analysis. Following independent screening, 89 publications out of 11 236 were included for data extraction and synthesis. Most of this evidence examines transitions related to human immunodeficiency virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS; n = 45, 50%) and immunization programmes (n = 14, 16%), with a focus on donors such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (n = 26, 29%) and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (n = 15, 17%). Donor transitions are influenced by the actions of both donors and country governments, with impacts on every component of the health system. Successful transition experiences show that leadership, planning, and pre-transition investments in a country's financial, technical, and logistical capacity are vital to ensuring smooth transition. In the absence of such measures, shortages in financial resources, medical product and supply stock-outs, service disruptions, and shortages in human resources were common, with resulting implications not only for programme continuation, but also for population health. Donor transitions can affect different components of the health system in varying and interconnected ways. More rigorous evaluation of how donor transitions can affect health systems in MICs will create an improved understanding of the risks and opportunities posed by donor exits.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Many jail facilities provide limited access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) for pregnant people with opioid use disorder (OUD), despite it being the standard of care. We aim to explore the perspectives of opioid treatment providers (OTPs) on access to MOUD for pregnant people while incarcerated and postincarceration.METHODS:We conducted 16 semistructured phone interviews with providers and administrators representing 16 unique OTPs in various U.S. states with high maternal opioid use rates. We developed the interview guide using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and we analyzed interview transcripts using a direct content analysis.RESULTS:Nine participants reported having an arrangement with a carceral facility to provide care for pregnant people with OUD; however, others described how their local jail offered no OUD treatment for incarcerated pregnant people. Even if participants' clinics had arrangements to provide MOUD in a jail, most participants described significant barriers to continuity of care between jails and community providers as patients transition between jails and community settings. OTPs described their belief of how postincarceration, pregnant people experience barriers to OUD care such as lack of access to childcare, preparing for the baby, feeling unwell, in addition to the barriers that nonpregnant patients experience, such as transportation, housing, and financing.CONCLUSIONS:OTPs perceive that pregnant people with OUD experience significant barriers to accessing treatment while incarcerated and in community settings due to discrimination, difficulties in continuity of care, and lack of treatment access while incarcerated. The implementation of evidence-based MOUD treatment for pregnant people in jail and continuation of treatment upon release is crucial to reduce health disparities.

PURPOSE Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) can help clinicians proactively assess and manage their patients' symptoms. Despite known benefits, there is limited adoption of ePROs into routine clinical care as a result of workflow and technologic challenges. This study identifies oncologists' perspectives on factors that affect integration of ePROs into clinical workflows. METHODS We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with 16 oncologists from a large academic medical center, across diverse subspecialties and cancer types. Oncologists were asked how they currently use or could imagine using ePROs before, during, and after a patient visit. We used an inductive approach to thematically analyze these qualitative data. RESULTS Results were categorized into the following three main themes: (1) selection and development of ePRO tool, (2) contextual drivers of adoption, and (3) patient-facing concerns. Respondents preferred diagnosis-based ePRO tools over more general symptom screeners. Although they noted information overload as a potential barrier, respondents described strong data visualization and ease of use as facilitators. Contextual drivers of oncologist adoption include identifying target early adopters, incentivizing uptake through use of ePRO data to support billing and documentation, and emphasizing benefits for patient care and efficiency. Respondents also indicated the need to focus on patient-facing issues, such as patient response rate, timing of survey distribution, and validity and reliability of responses. DISCUSSION Respondents identified several barriers and facilitators to successful uptake of ePROs. Understanding oncologists' perspectives is essential to inform both practice-level implementation strategies and policy-level decisions to include ePROs in alternative payment models for cancer care.