The potential and threat of digital tools to achieve health equity has been highlighted for over a decade, but the success of achieving equitable access to health technologies remains challenging. Our paper addresses renewed concerns regarding equity in digital health access that were deepened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our viewpoint is that (1) digital health tools have the potential to improve health equity if equitable access is achieved, and (2) improving access and equity in digital health can be strengthened by considering behavioral science–based strategies embedded in all phases of tool development. Using behavioral, equity, and access frameworks allowed for a unique and comprehensive exploration of current drivers of digital health inequities. This paper aims to present a compilation of strategies that can potentially have an actionable impact on digital health equity. Multilevel factors drive unequal access, so strategies require action from tool developers, individual delivery agents, organizations, and systems to effect change. Strategies were shaped with a behavioral medicine focus as the field has a unique role in improving digital health access; arguably, all digital tools require the user (individual, provider, and health system) to change behavior by engaging with the technology to generate impact. This paper presents a model that emphasizes using multilevel strategies across design, delivery, dissemination, and sustainment stages to advance digital health access and foster health equity.

The approval of long-acting injectable cabotegravir/rilpivirine (LAI CAB/RPV) heightened the urgency of ensuring effective implementation. Our study assesses readiness and barriers to implement LAI CAB/RPV across Ryan White–funded clinics in the United States. We conducted a cross-sectional survey between December 2020 and January 2021 using validated 4-item measures: acceptability of intervention measure (AIM), intervention appropriateness measure (IAM), and feasibility of intervention measure (FIM). Associations between measures and clinic characteristics were evaluated via Spearman rank correlations. A 5-point Likert scale ranked potential barriers of implementation responses. Open-ended questions were analyzed through a thematic approach. Of 270 clinics, 44 (16%) completed the survey: 38% federally qualified health centers, 36% academic, 20% community-based organizations, 14% hospital outpatient, and 9% nonprofit. Means (SD; range) were as follows: AIM, 17.6 (2.4; 12–20); IAM, 17.6 (2.4; 13–20); and FIM, 16.8 (2.9; 7–20). Twenty percent were not at all ready to implement LAI CAB/RPV, and 52% were slightly or somewhat ready. There was a significant association between AIM and the proportion of Medicaid patients (AIM, rho = 0.312, P = .050). Community-based organizations scored the highest readiness measures (mean [SD]: AIM, 19.50 [1.41]; IAM, 19.25 [1.49]; FIM, 19.13 [1.36]) as compared with other clinics. Implementation barriers were cost and patients’ nonadherence to visits. There is variability of readiness yet high levels of perceived acceptability and appropriateness of implementing LAI CAB/RPV among Ryan White clinics, necessitating tailored interventions for successful implementation. A special focus on addressing the barriers of adherence and the cost of implementation is needed.

To facilitate maximum uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine, the roles of medical trust and mistrust of healthcare professionals must be examined. Previous work suggests that trust and mistrust may have differential impacts on vaccination intention via vaccine necessity and concerns. Multigroup structural equation modeling was utilized to test whether vaccine necessity and concerns mediated the associations between trust in providers and health information, mistrust of providers, and willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine. The model was found to be invariant across Black and White respondents. Trust in providers and trust in healthcare information exerted indirect effects on intentions through vaccine necessity, while mistrust of providers exerted indirect effects through vaccine concerns. Unlike previous work, the forms of trust did not influence vaccine concerns. The findings have implications for future communication efforts from healthcare professionals and health messengers.

Background: African Americans chronically managing their diabetes benefit from receiving support from peers with shared experiences. Peer support is known to improve the well-being of individuals receiving support, however, there is limited literature on the experiences of those providing the support. The Peers Supporting Health Literacy, Self-efficacy, Self-Advocacy, and Adherence (Peers LEAD) program pairs Peer Ambassadors who are adherent to their diabetes medication, with Peer Buddies who need support with their medication adherence. Peer Ambassadors engage with Peer Buddies as they receive diabetes information, develop the skills and motivation to address identified psychosocial/sociocultural issues to enhance their diabetes medication adherence. This study qualitatively explores the experiences of African Americans who provided peer support in the Peers LEAD medication adherence intervention.Methods: Two focus groups were conducted with twelve Peer Ambassadors to explore their experiences of providing peer support in the Peers LEAD medication adherence intervention. Qualitative content analysis was conducted using an inductive open coding approach.Results: Emergent themes provided insight into Peer Ambassador’ rationale for providing peer support and the benefits and challenges they experienced in their roles. Themes regarding their rationale included: their desire to receive support for their diabetes self-management as well as to contribute to their communities in reducing the stigma associated with diabetes. The perceived benefits they gained centered on creating interpersonal connections, experiencing personal growth as they adapted to their roles, and experiencing opportunities to contribute to an intervention regardless of professional training. Peer Ambassadors reflected on the challenges which included difficulties on coming to terms with their role as Peer Ambassadors, seeing African Americans experience complications associated with diabetes, and navigating supporting Peer Buddies who are also burdened with the challenges their family members are experiencing with managing their diabetes.Conclusions: This study provides unique insight to what motivates individuals to provide peer support and what they gain from these experiences despite the challenges. Understanding the experiences of peers participating in such interventions may help inform the structure and content of programs that use peer support to focus on the benefits of and the motivation for participating in the program.

Background: The first long-acting injectable antiretroviral therapy (LAI ART) for HIV was approved for commercial use in the United States in January 2021. Assessment of clinic characteristics and their associations with implementation outcomes and barriers is essential to developing strategies for equitable access to LAI ART. Methods: Using validated implementation measures—acceptability of intervention measure (AIM), intervention appropriateness measure (IAM), and feasibility of intervention measure (FIM)—we conducted a cross-sectional survey of Ryan White clinics in the United States. Additionally, we gathered information on the clinics’ population, LAI ART implementation status, and barriers to implementation. Data were analyzed using STATA, version 17. Open-ended responses were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Results: Forty-two clinics completed the survey, with 73% in an urban setting. Most clinics identified as either federally qualified health centers (39%) or academic medical centers (27%). The mean (SD) for each measure (maximum of 20) reflected higher AIM (17.7 [2.3]) and IAM (17.6 [2.4]) compared with FIM (16.4 [3.0]). There was a positive correlation between the percentage of patients on Medicaid and summative AIM and IAM scores. The greatest barriers were prior authorizations, drug procurement, and clinic cost of implementation. Conclusions: Despite high acceptability and appropriateness, clinics’ perceived feasibility of LAI ART implementation was low. Barriers to implementation include nonstandardization of prior authorizations, obtaining the medication, and cost of implementation. Clinics with a larger Medicaid-insured population reported higher acceptability and appropriateness of LAI ART, suggesting that public insurance might promote equitable access. Interventions that address structural barriers are needed to improve uptake.