Implementation Science最新文献

Background: HIV burden in the US among people who inject drugs (PWID) is driven by overlapping syndemic factors such as co-occurring health needs and environmental factors that synergize to produce worse health outcomes among PWID. This includes stigma, poverty, and limited healthcare access (e.g. medication to treat/prevent HIV and for opioid use disorder [MOUD]). Health services to address these complex needs, when they exist, are rarely located in proximity to each other or to the PWID who need them. Given the shifting drug use landscapes and geographic heterogeneity in the US, we evaluate a data-driven approach to guide the delivery of such services to PWID in local communities.

Methods: We used a hybrid, type I, embedded, mixed method, data-driven approach to identify and characterize viable implementation neighborhoods for the HPTN 094 complex intervention, delivering integrated MOUD and HIV treatment/prevention through a mobile unit to PWID across five US cities. Applying the PRISM framework, we triangulated geographic and observational pre-implementation phase data (epidemiological overdose and HIV surveillance data) with two years of implementation phase data (weekly ecological assessments, study protocol meetings) to characterize environmental factors that affected the viability of implementation neighborhoods over time and across diverse settings.

Results: Neighborhood-level drug use and geographic diversity alongside shifting socio-political factors (policing, surveillance, gentrification) differentially affected the utility of epidemiological data in identifying viable implementation neighborhoods across sites. In sites where PWID are more geographically dispersed, proximity to structural factors such as public transportation and spaces where PWID reside played a role in determining suitable implementation sites. The utility of leveraging additional data from local overdose and housing response systems to identify viable implementation neighborhoods was mixed.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that data-driven approaches provide a contextually relevant pragmatic strategy to guide the real-time implementation of integrated care models to better meet the needs of PWID and help inform the scale-up of such complex interventions. This work highlights the utility of implementation science methods that attend to the impact of local community environmental factors on the implementation of complex interventions to PWID across diverse drug use, sociopolitical, and geographic landscapes in the US.

Trial registration: ClincalTrials.gov, Registration Number: NCT04804072 . Registered 18 February 2021.

Background: Policymakers and researchers recommend supporting the capabilities of feedback recipients to increase the quality of care. There are different ways to support capabilities. We aimed to describe the content and delivery of feedback facilitation interventions delivered alongside audit and feedback within randomised controlled trials.

Methods: We included papers describing feedback facilitation identified by the latest Cochrane review of audit and feedback. The piloted extraction proforma was based upon a framework to describe intervention content, with additional prompts relating to the identification of influences, selection of improvement actions and consideration of priorities and implications. We describe the content and delivery graphically, statistically and narratively.

Results: We reviewed 146 papers describing 104 feedback facilitation interventions. Across included studies, feedback facilitation contained 26 different implementation strategies. There was a median of three implementation strategies per intervention and evidence that the number of strategies per intervention is increasing. Theory was used in 35 trials, although the precise role of theory was poorly described. Ten studies provided a logic model and six of these described their mechanisms of action. Both the exploration of influences and the selection of improvement actions were described in 46 of the feedback facilitation interventions; we describe who undertook this tailoring work. Exploring dose, there was large variation in duration (15-1800 min), frequency (1 to 42 times) and number of recipients per site (1 to 135). There were important gaps in reporting, but some evidence that reporting is improving over time.

Conclusions: Heterogeneity in the design of feedback facilitation needs to be considered when assessing the intervention's effectiveness. We describe explicit feedback facilitation choices for future intervention developers based upon choices made to date. We found the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change to be valuable when describing intervention components, with the potential for some minor clarifications in terms and for greater specificity by intervention providers. Reporting demonstrated extensive gaps which hinder both replication and learning. Feedback facilitation providers are recommended to close reporting gaps that hinder replication. Future work should seek to address the 'opportunity' for improvement activity, defined as factors that lie outside the individual that make care or improvement behaviour possible.

Review registration: The study protocol was published at: https://www.protocols.io/private/4DA5DE33B68E11ED9EF70A58A9FEAC02 .

Background: Integrated care involves care provided by a team of professionals, often in non-traditional settings. A common example worldwide is integrated school-based mental health (SBMH), which involves externally employed clinicians providing care at schools. Integrated mental healthcare can improve the accessibility and efficiency of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for vulnerable populations suffering from fragmented traditional care. However, integration can complicate EBP implementation due to overlapping organizational contexts, diminishing the public health impact. Emerging literature suggests that EBP implementation may benefit from the similarities in the implementation context factors between the different organizations in integrated care, which we termed inter-organizational alignment (IOA). This study quantitatively explored whether and how IOA in general and implementation context factors are associated with implementation outcomes in integrated SBMH.

Methods: SBMH clinicians from community-based organizations (CBOs; n_clinician = 27) and their proximal student-support school staff (n_school = 99) rated their schools and CBOs (clinician only) regarding general (organizational culture and molar climate) and implementation context factors (Implementation Climate and Leadership), and nine common implementation outcomes (e.g., treatment integrity, service access, acceptability). The levels of IOA were estimated by intra-class correlations (ICCs). We fitted multilevel models to estimate the standalone effects of context factors from CBOs and schools on implementation outcomes. We also estimated the 2-way interaction effects between CBO and school context factors (i.e., between-setting interdependence) on implementation outcomes.

Results: The IOA in general context factors exceeded those of implementation context factors. The standalone effects of implementation context factors on most implementation outcomes were larger than those of general context factors. Similarly, implementation context factors between CBOs and schools showed larger 2-way interaction effects on implementation outcomes than general context factors.

Conclusions: This study preliminarily supported the importance of IOA in context factors for integrated SBMH. The findings shed light on how IOA in implementation and general context factors may be differentially associated with implementation outcomes across a broad array of integrated mental healthcare settings.

Background: Providing secondary prevention through structured and comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation programmes to patients after a myocardial infarction (MI) reduces mortality and morbidity and improves health-related quality of life. Cardiac rehabilitation has the highest recommendation in current guidelines. While treatment target attainment rates at Swedish cardiac rehabilitation centres is among the highest in Europe, there are considerable differences in service delivery and variations in patient-level outcomes between centres. In this trial, we aim to study whether centre-level guideline adherence and patient-level outcomes across Swedish cardiac rehabilitation centres can be improved through a) regular audit and feedback of cardiac rehabilitation structure and processes through a national quality registry and b) supporting cardiac rehabilitation centres in implementing guidelines on secondary prevention. Furthermore, we aim to evaluate the implementation process and costs.

Methods: The study is an open-label cluster-randomized effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial including all 78 cardiac rehabilitation centres (attending to approximately 10 000 MI patients/year) that report to the SWEDEHEART registry. The centres will be randomized 1:1:1 to three clusters: 1) reporting cardiac rehabilitation structure and process variables to SWEDEHEART every six months (audit intervention) and being offered implementation support to implement guidelines on secondary prevention (implementation support intervention); 2) audit intervention only; or 3) no intervention offered. Baseline cardiac rehabilitation structure and process variables will be collected. The primary outcome is an adherence score measuring centre-level adherence to secondary prevention guidelines. Secondary outcomes include patient-level secondary prevention risk factor goal attainment at one-year after MI and major adverse coronary outcomes for up to five-years post-MI. Implementation outcomes include barriers and facilitators to guideline adherence evaluated using semi-structured focus-group interviews and relevant questionnaires, as well as costs and cost-effectiveness assessed by a comparative health economic evaluation.

Discussion: Optimizing cardiac rehabilitation centres' delivery of services to meet standards set in guidelines may lead to improvement in cardiovascular risk factors, including lifestyle factors, and ultimately a decrease in morbidity and mortality after MI.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT05889416 . Registered 2023-03-23.