Implementation science has a key role to play in reducing health inequities within healthcare systems. In recent years, the number of health equity-focused implementation science theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) has increased. However, the methods used to design and adapt TMFs are not well understood. Exploring these methods will help us understand how health equity is considered in implementation science TMFs and inform future adaptations and applications in real-world, healthcare system contexts. The purpose of this review is to explore the methods used to design, adapt, and apply health equity-focused implementation science TMFs. This scoping review followed Arksey 6 articles did not. Methods included evidence synthesis (e.g., scoping review, integrative review) consensus (e.g., modified Delphi, Indigenous consensus, nominal group technique), community engagement (e.g., partnerships, workshops), and qualitative analysis. Articles also reported using multiple methods. Equity considerations included social (e.g. race, ethnicity, gender) and structural determinants of health (e.g. power, policies). Articles reported novel (n = 12), applied (n = 9), adapted (n = 9), adapted and applied (n = 5), and novel and applied (n = 5) equity-focused TMFs. This scoping review explored the methods for developing and using equity-focused implementation science TMFs. There was a focus on who is invited to the table and tensions between expert (consensus) and experiential (community engagement) knowledge. Our findings suggest that the methods to design and adapt TMFs should be tailored to communities’ ways of knowing and doing, and consider the health equity factors relevant to their lived experiences. These results can inform future equity-focused TMFs to reduce health inequities.
Kennedy et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: