Health Disparity Difference

Differences in Health Disparity Research and Quality Initiatives

Conventionally, quality improvement (QI) and research are identified as two distinct areas, without significant connections in the health care field. According to Mode and Peterson (2005) research and practice integration is a complex task since it often needs new conceptual frameworks, categories of relationships, and languages for patients, clinicians, researchers, funding agencies, and academic institutions. Therefore, health research and practice possess different ways of addressing issues; hence, exhibit different characteristics in handling disparities. Sickle cell pain management is one of the areas that reveal most of the key differences in health disparities research and quality initiatives, which emanate from their different focus and orientation. Despite the existing differences, merging study and quality improvement efforts can be source of advantage in addressing health disparity issues due to the informational role played by research, and the evidence approach of QI.

Primary care Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs) argue that giving clinicians the freedom to choose

In most cases, health care disparity research involves individual efforts, with minimum supervision and guidelines or regulations except when funded by the state or an organization. Quality health care, on the other hand, is a requirement of the State; hence, in most cases, government agencies and/or commissions, such as Joint Commission Accreditation, Health Care, Certification (JCAHO), supervise and regulate QI through a number of policies. Therefore, health disparities and QI is often highly organized with expected outcomes and means of evaluating the level of intended results achievement. However, in Health disparities research, emphasis on output is minimal compared to