Implementation Science最新文献

Background: Childhood cancer treatment while often curative, leads to elevated risks of morbidity and mortality. Survivors require lifelong periodic surveillance for late effects of treatment, yet adherence to guideline-recommended tests is suboptimal. We created ONLOOP to provide adult survivors of childhood cancer with detailed health information, including summaries of their childhood cancer treatment and recommended surveillance tests for early detection of cardiomyopathy, breast cancer, and/or colorectal cancer, with personalized reminders over time.

Methods: This is an individually randomized, registry-based pragmatic trial with an embedded process and economic evaluation to understand ONLOOP's impact and whether it can be readily implemented at scale. All adult survivors of childhood cancer in Ontario overdue for guideline-recommended tests will be randomly assigned to one of two arms: (1) intervention or (2) delayed intervention. A letter of information and invitation will detail the ONLOOP program. Those who sign up will receive a personalized toolkit and a screening reminder 6 months later. With the participants' consent, ONLOOP will also send their primary care clinician a letter detailing the recommended tests and a reminder 6 months later. The primary outcome will be the proportion of survivors who complete one or more of the guideline-recommended cardiac, breast, or colon surveillance tests during the 12 months after randomization. Data will be obtained from administrative databases. The intent-to-treat principle will be followed. Based on our analyses of administrative data, we anticipate allocating at least 862 individuals to each trial arm, providing 90% power to detect an absolute increase of 6% in targeted surveillance tests completed. We will interview childhood cancer survivors and family physicians in an embedded process evaluation to examine why and how ONLOOP achieved success or failed. A cost-effectiveness evaluation will be performed.

Discussion: The results of this study will determine if ONLOOP is effective at helping adult survivors of childhood cancer complete their recommended surveillance tests. This study will also inform ongoing provincial programs for this high-risk population.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05832138.

Background: The gap between research findings and clinical practice is well documented and a range of strategies have been developed to support the implementation of research into clinical practice. The objective of this study was to update and extend two previous reviews of systematic reviews of strategies designed to implement research evidence into clinical practice.

Methods: We developed a comprehensive systematic literature search strategy based on the terms used in the previous reviews to identify studies that looked explicitly at interventions designed to turn research evidence into practice. The search was performed in June 2022 in four electronic databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Epistemonikos. We searched from January 2010 up to June 2022 and applied no language restrictions. Two independent reviewers appraised the quality of included studies using a quality assessment checklist. To reduce the risk of bias, papers were excluded following discussion between all members of the team. Data were synthesised using descriptive and narrative techniques to identify themes and patterns linked to intervention strategies, targeted behaviours, study settings and study outcomes.

Results: We identified 32 reviews conducted between 2010 and 2022. The reviews are mainly of multi-faceted interventions (n = 20) although there are reviews focusing on single strategies (ICT, educational, reminders, local opinion leaders, audit and feedback, social media and toolkits). The majority of reviews report strategies achieving small impacts (normally on processes of care). There is much less evidence that these strategies have shifted patient outcomes. Furthermore, a lot of nuance lies behind these headline findings, and this is increasingly commented upon in the reviews themselves.

Discussion: Combined with the two previous reviews, 86 systematic reviews of strategies to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice have been identified. We need to shift the emphasis away from isolating individual and multi-faceted interventions to better understanding and building more situated, relational and organisational capability to support the use of research in clinical practice. This will involve drawing on a wider range of research perspectives (including social science) in primary studies and diversifying the types of synthesis undertaken to include approaches such as realist synthesis which facilitate exploration of the context in which strategies are employed.

Background: Sustaining evidence-based practices (EBPs) is crucial to ensuring care quality and addressing health disparities. Approaches to identifying factors related to sustainability are critically needed. One such approach is Matrixed Multiple Case Study (MMCS), which identifies factors and their combinations that influence implementation. We applied MMCS to identify factors related to the sustainability of the evidence-based Collaborative Chronic Care Model (CCM) at nine Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient mental health clinics, 3-4 years after implementation support had concluded.

Methods: We conducted a directed content analysis of 30 provider interviews, using 6 CCM elements and 4 Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) domains as codes. Based on CCM code summaries, we designated each site as high/medium/low sustainability. We used i-PARIHS code summaries to identify relevant factors for each site, the extent of their presence, and the type of influence they had on sustainability (enabling/neutral/hindering/unclear). We organized these data into a sortable matrix and assessed sustainability-related cross-site trends.

Results: CCM sustainability status was distributed among the sites, with three sites each being high, medium, and low. Twenty-five factors were identified from the i-PARIHS code summaries, of which 3 exhibited strong trends by sustainability status (relevant i-PARIHS domain in square brackets): "Collaborativeness/Teamwork [Recipients]," "Staff/Leadership turnover [Recipients]," and "Having a consistent/strong internal facilitator [Facilitation]" during and after active implementation. At most high-sustainability sites only, (i) "Having a knowledgeable/helpful external facilitator [Facilitation]" was variably present and enabled sustainability when present, while (ii) "Clarity about what CCM comprises [Innovation]," "Interdisciplinary coordination [Recipients]," and "Adequate clinic space for CCM team members [Context]" were somewhat or less present with mixed influences on sustainability.

Conclusions: MMCS revealed that CCM sustainability in VA outpatient mental health clinics may be related most strongly to provider collaboration, knowledge retention during staff/leadership transitions, and availability of skilled internal facilitators. These findings have informed a subsequent CCM implementation trial that prospectively examines whether enhancing the above-mentioned factors within implementation facilitation improves sustainability. MMCS is a systematic approach to multi-site examination that can be used to investigate sustainability-related factors applicable to other EBPs and across multiple contexts.

Background: A myriad of federal, state, and organizational policies are designed to improve access to evidence-based healthcare, but the impact of these policies likely varies due to contextual determinants of, reinterpretations of, and poor compliance with policy requirements throughout implementation. Strategies enhancing implementation and compliance with policy intent can improve population health. Critically assessing the multi-level environments where health policies and their related health services are implemented is essential to designing effective policy-level implementation strategies. California passed a 2019 health insurance benefit mandate requiring coverage of fertility preservation services for individuals at risk of infertility due to medical treatments, in order to improve access to services that are otherwise cost prohibitive. Our objective was to document and understand the multi-level environment, relationships, and activities involved in using state benefit mandates to facilitate patient access to fertility preservation services.

Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study and used the policy-optimized exploration, preparation, implementation, and sustainment (EPIS) framework to analyze the implementation of California's fertility preservation benefit mandate (SB 600) at and between the state insurance regulator, insurer, and clinic levels.

Results: Seventeen publicly available fertility preservation benefit mandate-relevant documents were reviewed. Interviews were conducted with four insurers; 25 financial, administrative, and provider participants from 16 oncology and fertility clinics; three fertility pharmaceutical representatives; and two patient advocates. The mandate and insurance regulator guidance represented two "Big P" (system level) policies that gave rise to a host of "little p" (organizational) policies by and between the regulator, insurers, clinics, and patients. Many little p policies were bridging factors to support implementation across levels and fertility preservation service access. Characterizing the mandate's functions (i.e., policy goals) and forms (i.e., ways that policies were enacted) led to identification of (1) intended and unintended implementation, service, and patient outcomes, (2) implementation processes by level and EPIS phase, (3) actor-delineated key processes and heterogeneity among them, and (4) inner and outer context determinants that drove adaptations.

Conclusions: Following the midstream and downstream implementation of a state health insurance benefit mandate, data generated will enable development of policy-level implementation strategies, evaluation of determinants and important outcomes of effective implementation, and design of future mandates to improve fit and fidelity.

Background: This study's goal is to identify the existing variation in how, why, and by whom anthropological practice is conducted as part of implementation science projects. As doctorally trained anthropologists, we sought to characterize how and why the term "ethnography" was variously applied in the implementation science literature and characterize the practice of anthropology within and across the field.

Methods: While we follow the PRISMA-ScR checklist, we present the work with a narrative approach to accurately reflect our review process. A health services librarian developed a search strategy using subject headings and keywords for the following databases: PubMed, Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley), CIHAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (EBSCO), Web of Science Core Collection, and Anthropology Plus (EBSCO). We focused on the practice of anthropology in implementation research conducted in a healthcare setting, in English, with no date restrictions. Studies were included if they applied one or several elements of anthropological methods in terms of study design, data collection, and/or analysis.

Results: The database searches produced 3450 results combined after duplicates were removed, which were added to Rayyan for two rounds of screening by title and abstract. A total of 487 articles were included in the full-text screening. Of these, 227 were included and received data extraction that we recorded and analyzed with descriptive statistics in three main domains: (1) anthropological methods; (2) implementation science methods; and (3) study context. We found the use of characteristic tools of anthropology like ethnography and field notes are usually not systematically described but often mentioned. Further, we found that research design decisions and compromises (e.g., length of time in the field, logistics of stakeholder involvement, reconciling diverse firsthand experiences) that often impact anthropological approaches are not systematically described.

Conclusions: Anthropological work often supports larger, mixed-methods implementation projects without being thoroughly reported. Context is essential to anthropological practice and implicitly fundamental to implementation research, yet the goals of anthropology and how its practice informs larger research projects are often not explicitly stated.

Background: Cross-system interventions that integrate health, behavioral health, and social services can improve client outcomes and expand community impact. Successful implementation of these interventions depends on the extent to which service partners can align frontline services and organizational operations. However, collaboration strategies linking multiple implementation contexts have received limited empirical attention. This study identifies, describes, and specifies multi-level collaboration strategies used during the implementation of Ohio Sobriety Treatment and Reducing Trauma (Ohio START), a cross-system intervention that integrates services across two systems (child welfare and evidence-based behavioral health services) for families that are affected by co-occurring child maltreatment and parental substance use disorders.

Methods: In phase 1, we used a multi-site qualitative design with 17 counties that implemented Ohio START. Qualitative data were gathered from 104 staff from child welfare agencies, behavioral health treatment organizations, and regional behavioral health boards involved in implementation via 48 small group interviews about collaborative approaches to implementation. To examine cross-system collaboration strategies, qualitative data were analyzed using an iterative template approach and content analysis. In phase 2, a 16-member expert panel met to validate and specify the cross-system collaboration strategies identified in the interviews. The panel was comprised of key child welfare and behavioral health partners and scholars.

Results: In phase 1, we identified seven cross-system collaboration strategies used for implementation. Three strategies were used to staff the program: (1) contract for expertise, (2) provide joint supervision, and (3) co-locate staff. Two strategies were used to promote service access: (4) referral protocols and (5) expedited access agreements. Two strategies were used to align case plans: (6) shared decision-making meetings, and (7) sharing data. In phase 2, expert panelists specified operational details of the cross-system collaboration strategies, and explained the processes by which strategies were perceived to improve implementation and service system outcomes.

Conclusions: We identified a range of cross-system collaboration strategies that show promise for improving staffing, service access, and case planning. Leaders, supervisors, and frontline staff used these strategies during all phases of implementation. These findings lay the foundation for future experimental and quasi-experimental studies that test the effectiveness of cross-system collaboration strategies.

Background: Implementation science groups change methods into two categories: (1) clinical, behavioral, or biomedical intervention targeting recipient's health outcomes and (2) implementation strategies targeting the delivery system. Differentiating interventions from strategies based on their intended functions is critical to accurately attributing their effects to health or implementation outcomes. However, in coordinating 200+ HIV implementation research projects and conducting systematic reviews, we identified change methods that had characteristics of both interventions and strategies that were inconsistently categorized. To alleviate confusion and improve change method specification, we propose that implementation science should adopt an extant but rarely used term-adjunctive interventions-to classify change methods that are distinct from the common intervention/strategy taxonomy.

Main text: Adjunctive interventions as change methods that target recipients (e.g., patients, participants) of a health intervention but are designed to increase recipients' motivation, self-efficacy, or capacity for initiating, adhering to, complying with, or engaging with the health intervention over time. In two of our published reviews on implementation of HIV interventions, 25 out of 45 coded change methods fell into this gray area between strategy and intervention. We also noted instances in which the same change method was labelled as the intervention ("the thing"), as an adjunctive intervention, or an implementation strategy in different studies-further muddying the waters. Adjunctive interventions are distinguished from other change methods by their intended targets, desired outcomes, and theory of action and causal processes. Whereas health interventions target recipients and have a direct, causal effect on the health outcome, adjunctive interventions enhance recipients' attitudes and behaviors to engage with the intervention and have an indirect causal link to the health outcome via increasing the probability of recipients' utilization and adherence to the intervention. Adjunctive interventions are incapable of directly producing the health outcome and will themselves require implementation strategies to effectively impact sustained uptake, utilization, and adherence. Case examples, logic modeling, and considerations (e.g., relationship to consumer engagement strategies) for adjunctive intervention research are provided.

Conclusion: Conceptualizing adjunctive interventions as a separate type of change method will advance implementation research by improving tests of effectiveness, and the specification of mechanisms and outcomes.