That gap is the target of a new study published in BMC Health Services Research. Led by Anand K. Narayan of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, the research team describes the design of an implementation blueprint: a structured, fill-in-the-blanks template that guides cancer centers and imaging practices through the development, deployment, and evaluation of interventions to raise mammography screening rates among underserved patient populations. The work emerged from a 2023 initiative in which the American College of Radiology and the Radiology Health Equity Coalition sponsored participation in the National Academy of Medicine Scholars in Diagnostic Excellence program, an effort to develop strategies for reducing care gaps that limit access to timely, high-quality screening and diagnostic breast imaging.

The central insight of the paper is that the tools of implementation science, a discipline devoted to understanding how evidence-based practices get adopted in real-world settings, can be fused with the familiar machinery of quality improvement. Rather than asking clinicians to master an entirely new methodology, the authors adapted a validated A3 quality improvement template, a one-page problem-solving format with demonstrated reliability, measurement, content, and construct validity, and rebuilt it around published implementation science determinants, process, and evaluation frameworks. They drew on training courses and resources from the National Cancer Institute’s health-equity focused implementation toolkit to ensure that equity considerations were embedded at every step rather than bolted on afterward.

The resulting blueprint contains eight sections: Problem, Targets, Current Situation, Determinants, Evidence-Based Practice Intervention, Recommendations, Action Plan, and Sustain and Follow-Up. Each section translates a conceptual framework into a concrete task. The problem statement is written with health equity in mind, naming the specific patient population experiencing increased deaths from breast cancer. The target is expressed as a SMART goal, meaning it is Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound, so that progress can be tracked rather than merely aspired to.

One of the most technically interesting components is the modification of the classic fishbone diagram, a cause-and-effect visualization long used in industrial and clinical quality improvement, using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, known as CFIR. CFIR organizes the determinants of implementation success across five domains: the intervention itself, the outer setting, the inner setting, the characteristics of individuals, and the implementation process. By pairing CFIR domains with explicit health equity questions, the blueprint prompts teams to identify barriers and facilitators to cancer screening that they might otherwise overlook, such as how clinic hours, language access, or historical mistrust shape whether women in the target population actually book and complete a mammogram.

Identifying barriers is only half the battle; the blueprint then requires teams to match those barriers to discrete implementation strategies. For this, the authors turned to the CFIR-ERIC mapping tool, which links determinants identified through CFIR to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change, a catalog of 73 discrete implementation strategies compiled from a systematic review of the literature. A key driver diagram in the blueprint maps each identified barrier to a corresponding strategy, creating a traceable chain from problem to solution. This mapping discipline matters because implementation strategies deployed without a clear rationale for why they should work in a given setting are a well-documented source of wasted effort in quality improvement.

The blueprint also builds evaluation and sustainability into the action plan rather than treating them as afterthoughts. Action plans include tracking health equity focused implementation outcomes, so teams can see whether the intervention is actually narrowing the gap for the named population. Determinants of program sustainability are assessed with the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool, or PSAT, which evaluates factors such as funding stability, partnerships, organizational capacity, and program evaluation. The framework repertoire the authors draw on is broad, encompassing the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change measure, the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model, and Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, along with the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies for documenting how interventions are tailored in practice.

Why does this matter now? The authors frame their contribution as a pivot point for the field. Over several decades, health services research has generated key insights about the multilevel drivers of cancer health disparities, but the next phase, they contend, should leverage those insights to design, implement, and rigorously evaluate interventions rather than continuing to catalog determinants. Implementation science process, determinants, and evaluation frameworks offer methods to accelerate dissemination and advance disparities research, and packaging them inside a validated quality improvement template lowers the barrier to entry for cancer centers that lack dedicated implementation science expertise. The Radiology Health Equity Coalition, convened by the American College of Radiology, brings together patient-focused radiology societies to collect, assess, and disseminate resources and best practices, providing a ready dissemination channel for the blueprint.

The technical scaffolding also reflects a shift in how the radiology community measures quality itself. The abbreviations woven through the paper, from BI-RADS, the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, to positive predictive value measures used to assess the cancer yield of biopsies, signal that the blueprint is designed for teams who already track imaging performance metrics and now need to track equity metrics with the same rigor. Electronic clinical quality improvement resources from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are positioned as data infrastructure for measuring screening percentages and follow-up outcomes across patient populations.

The study was supported by the Susan G. Komen Foundation Career Catalyst Award and the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center Support Grant, and the authors declare no competing interests. Published open access on 15 October 2026, the paper offers its blueprint as an actionable template rather than a finished intervention, and its real test will come as cancer centers pick it up, adapt it with the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles it prescribes, and report whether mammography screening rates rise in the populations where deaths from breast cancer remain highest. If the blueprint succeeds in standardizing how equity-focused implementation is planned and evaluated, it could mark the moment when reducing cancer disparities stops being an aspiration in strategic plans and becomes a measurable, repeatable quality improvement target.

Subject of Research: Health equity informed implementation science blueprint for reducing breast cancer screening disparities

Article Title: Design of an implementation blueprint to reduce breast cancer disparities using health equity informed implementation science frameworks

Article References: Design of an implementation blueprint to reduce breast cancer disparities using health equity informed implementation science frameworks. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-15831-1

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12913-026-15831-1

Keywords: breast cancer, health equity, implementation science, mammography, screening disparities, quality improvement, CFIR, radiology, cancer centers, health services research, sustainability, BMC Health Services Research