How to Get Medical Research into Doctors’ Hands Faster—and Save Countless Lives 

In 2011, my colleagues and I published an important study in maternal fetal medicine. We’d proven that a simple progesterone treatment could reduce preterm births by 45% in high-risk pregnancies. The results were clear, the treatment was safe, and the impact was significant, with fewer babies in the NICU, fewer cases of respiratory distress, and better outcomes for mothers and newborns.

In short, there was the potential to save thousands of lives a year.

Then we waited for the treatment to reach patients.

And waited.

A decade later, as a high-risk pregnancy physician, I was still seeing women across Michigan who weren’t getting the ultrasound screening that would identify their risk. They weren’t receiving the treatment that could prevent early delivery. The research was published, and the evidence was strong. But the gap between what we knew and what patients received remained as wide as ever.

This is the story of how we finally closed that gap. 

How Crisis Became an Opportunity

After we published our research, some passionate clinicians in different parts of the state began implementing the new protocols in their hospitals. But it was all happening in silos. Research doesn’t automatically translate to implementation. Insurance creates barriers. Health systems have competing priorities. Through a long chain of disconnected events, patients fall through the gaps.

What we needed was a coordinated system to implement the new protocols consistently across the state to reach the women who needed them most.

The turning point came during COVID. Several high-risk obstetricians approached me about forming a collaborative to study pregnancy outcomes during the pandemic. We discovered that pregnant women in Michigan had higher risks of preterm delivery and preeclampsia. 

But as the pandemic subsided, we faced a choice: continue studying COVID’s impact on pregnancy or tackle the persistent problems we’d been watching for decades—maternal and infant mortality from causes we already knew how to prevent.

We chose the latter. That collaborative effort laid the foundation for what would become the SOS MATERNITY Network in Michigan, a statewide network dedicated to providing cutting-edge maternal healthcare for moms and babies.

Removing the Egos

I’d heard that other states had attempted something similar but had failed because of competing institutional interests. When Michigan’s hospital CEOs stood together publicly and committed to combating maternal and infant mortality, it was different.

What makes our network unique isn’t just its scale, though bringing together 20 leading hospitals, universities and health systems across Michigan is unprecedented. The most important factor is how we structured the collaboration.

The key was positioning our university-based coordinating center as a neutral party. We brand everything as the “SOS MATERNITY Network.” It’s not the university leading the charge, it’s the network itself. Every member institution has autonomy, and everyone has equal access to resources. And we are thoughtful about visibility and credit. You can’t build a real collaboration if institutions feel they are competing for recognition.

And details matter. At one launch event, a partner questioned their logo placement. It seems small, but these considerations build or break institutional partnerships.

Implementation Strategy

Once we had the coalition, we focused on three elements to help make the program work.

First, we standardized evidence-based protocols for preventing preeclampsia and preterm birth. Inconsistent protocols across hospitals mean we’re leaving outcomes to chance.

Second, we addressed transportation barriers. Years of research consistently shows that transportation is the primary reason pregnant women miss appointments. We provide free, reliable transportation paired with patient navigators, who help patients access both medical care and social resources.

Third, we offered financial support tied to critical visits. Patients receive approximately $350 throughout their pregnancy, with payments linked to essential appointments. It’s not a large sum, but patients tell us that it arrives when they need it most.

We also strategically built in provider incentives, knowing that as we scale to high-volume private practices, that will factor into decision-making for each business—similar to the way insurance models give clinicians incentives for care. This signals that participating in the network is a priority rather than just another unfunded mandate. 

Within nine months, we enrolled more than 1,500 mothers by launching with our strongest sites first, institutions with proven implementation experience and leadership support.

The Real Barriers

Of course, there were some challenges. Not all sites perform to their capabilities—because of complex hiring processes, unclear reporting structures, and administrative approvals that delay progress. The clinicians are excellent and committed, but they are constrained by factors outside of their control.

When we encounter these barriers, our approach varies depending on the obstacle. Sometimes, we return to the CEO to confirm organizational commitment. The answer is always yes, but CEOs rarely know what’s blocking implementation at operational levels, so it’s critical to keep them informed. 

Our approach varies depending on the situation. Sometimes we work directly with physicians to navigate their institutions; sometimes we engage administrators to clarify the mission; and sometimes we launch with a partner institution first to create momentum.

What We’ve Learned

The initial sites have been in place for a little over a year, but some sites only have been operational for a few months. For that reason, it’s still too soon to see statewide changes in the key data points. According to last year’s data from March of Dimes, our preterm birth rate was 10.7%, which is above the national average of 10.4%. We ranked 32nd of 52 (including all states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico). Our maternal mortality rate was 19.1 deaths per 100,000 live births, and infant mortality stood at 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births. Both of those data points are higher than the national average.

As we continue to expand the program, we expect to see a reduction in the number of preterm births and maternal and infant deaths in Michigan—as well as an improvement in the state’s national ranking. 

There are some early signs of progress. For starters, surveys show high levels of patient satisfaction with the program. Also, several large hospital systems have opted to implement the protocols system-wide, which speaks to its potential impact. This year, the goal is to add more key medical centers in cities and also to expand to rural areas. 

Though we’ve cut the typical research-to-implementation time in half, the real lesson of our network is about what systemic change requires. Set egos aside to make partnerships work. Launch strategically with institutions that have strong implementation capacity. Anticipate non-clinical barriers. Build scalable incentive models that work as you grow.

Michigan’s maternal health crisis isn’t close to being solved. But we’ve proven that rapid statewide coordination, supported by the state government, is achievable, as we’ve standardized protocols across 20 major partners. That infrastructure and collective commitment is what was missing. This has a real prospect of changing outcomes for Michigan’s mothers and babies for years to come.