Implementation science (IS) has emerged in response to a striking research-to-practice gap, with the goal of accelerating and addressing the development, translation, and widespread uptake of evidence-based interventions (EBIs). Despite the promise of IS, critical gaps and opportunities remain within the field to explicitly facilitate health equity, particularly as they relate to the role of social determinants of health and structural racism. In this commentary, we propose recommendations for the field of IS to include structural racism as a more explicit focus of our work. First, we make the case for including structural racism as a construct and promote its measure­ment as a determinant within existing IS frameworks/models, laying the foundation for an empirical evidence base on mecha­nisms through which such factors influence inequitable adoption, implementation, and sustainability of EBIs. Second, we suggest considerations for both EBIs and implemen­tation strategies that directly or indirectly address structural racism and impact health equity. Finally, we call for use of methods and approaches within IS that may be more appropriate for addressing structural racism at multiple ecological levels and clinical and community settings in which we conduct IS, including community-based participatory research and stakeholder engagement. We see these as opportunities to advance the focus on health equity within IS and con­clude with a charge to the field to consider making structural racism and the disman­tling of racism an explicit part of the IS research agenda.Ethn Dis. 2021;31(Suppl 1):357-364; doi:10.18865/ed.31.S1.357

Background Despite the promise of implementation science (IS) to reduce health inequities, critical gaps and opportunities remain in the field to promote health equity. Prioritizing racial equity and antiracism approaches is critical in these efforts, so that IS does not inadvertently exacerbate disparities based on the selection of frameworks, methods, interventions, and strategies that do not reflect consideration of structural racism and its impacts. Methods Grounded in extant research on structural racism and antiracism, we discuss the importance of advancing understanding of how structural racism as a system shapes racial health inequities and inequitable implementation of evidence-based interventions among racially and ethnically diverse communities. We outline recommendations for explicitly applying an antiracism lens to address structural racism and its manifests through IS. An anti-racism lens provides a framework to guide efforts to confront, address, and eradicate racism and racial privilege by helping people identify racism as a root cause of health inequities and critically examine how it is embedded in policies, structures, and systems that differentially affect racially and ethnically diverse populations. Results We provide guidance for the application of an antiracism lens in the field of IS, focusing on select core elements in implementation research, including: (1) stakeholder engagement; (2) conceptual frameworks and models; (3) development, selection, adaptation of EBIs; (4) evaluation approaches; and (5) implementation strategies. We highlight the need for foundational grounding in antiracism frameworks among implementation scientists to facilitate ongoing self-reflection, accountability, and attention to racial equity, and provide questions to guide such reflection and consideration. Conclusion We conclude with a reflection on how this is a critical time for IS to prioritize focus on justice, racial equity, and real-world equitable impact. Moving IS towards making consideration of health equity and an antiracism lens foundational is central to strengthening the field and enhancing its impact. Plain language abstract There are important gaps and opportunities that exist in promoting health equity through implementation science. Historically, the commonly used frameworks, measures, interventions, strategies, and approaches in the field have not been explicitly focused on equity, nor do they consider the role of structural racism in shaping health and inequitable delivery of evidence-based practices/programs. This work seeks to build off of the long history of research on structural racism and health, and seeks to provide guidance on how to apply an antiracism lens to select core elements of implementation research. We highlight important opportunities for the field to reflect and consider applying an antiracism approach in: 1) stakeholder/community engagement; 2) use of conceptual frameworks; 3) development, selection and adaptation of evidence-based interventions; 4) evaluation approaches; 5) implementation strategies (e.g., how to deliver evidence-based practices, programs, policies); and 6) how researchers conduct their research, with a focus on racial equity. This is an important time for the field of implementation science to prioritize a foundational focus on justice, equity, and real-world impact through the application of an anti-racism lens in their work.

Background: Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) experiences disproportionate burden of cervical cancer incidence and mortality due in part to low uptake of cervical screening, a strategy for prevention and down-staging of cervical cancer. This scoping review identifies studies of interventions to increase uptake of cervical screening among women in the region and uses the Integrated Behavioral Model (IBM) to describe how interventions might work. Methods: A systematic search of literature was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and CINAHL databases through May 2019. Screening and data charting were performed by two independent reviewers. Intervention studies measuring changes to uptake in screening among women in SSA were included, with no restriction to intervention type, study setting or date, or participant characteristics. Intervention type and implementation strategies were described using behavioral constructs from the IBM.Results: Of the 3704 citations the search produced, 19 studies were selected for inclusion. Most studies were published between 2014 and 2019 (78.9%) and were set in Nigeria (47.4%) and South Africa (26.3%). Studies most often assessed screening with Pap smears (31.6%) and measured uptake as ever screened (42.1%) or screened during the study period (36.8%). Education-based interventions were most common (57.9%) and the IBM construct of knowledge/skills to perform screening was targeted most frequently (68.4%). Willingness to screen was high, before and after intervention. Screening coverage ranged from 1.7 to 99.2% post-intervention, with six studies (31.6%) reporting a significant improvement in screening that achieved ≥60% coverage. (Continued on next page)Conclusions: Educational interventions were largely ineffective, except those that utilized peer or community health educators and mHealth implementation strategies. Two economic incentivization interventions were moderately effective, by acting on participants' instrumental attitudes, but resulted in screening coverage less than 20%. Innovative service delivery, including community-based self-sampling, acted on environmental constraints, striving to make services more available, accessible, and appropriate to women, and were the most effective. This review demonstrates that intent to perform screening may not be the major determinant of screening behavior, suggesting other theoretical frameworks may be needed to more fully understand uptake of cervical screening in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly for health systems change interventions.

As physicians look to adopt decision aids in practice, they may base the choice of aid on characteristics that correlate with patient socioeconomic and educational status, personal practice style and practice setting.