Implementation science communications最新文献

Background: Understanding factors affecting adoption of an innovation is critical to its long-term success. Maternity waiting homes (MWHs) increase access to facility-based delivery in low-resourced settings; yet, quality issues deter utilization of this innovative approach. We sought to understand how attributes that are thought to promote diffusion of innovations (e.g., relative advantage, compatibility, observability, complexity, etc.) affected MWH use after implementation of an improved quality MWH model in rural Zambia compared to standard of care.

Methods: We conducted 158 in-depth interviews (IDIs) with randomly selected rural-living women who had delivered a baby in the prior 12 months. Half lived in catchment areas where new quality MWHs were constructed, half in catchment areas with standard of care (ranging from low quality community structures to no MWH). We applied content analysis to identify themes.

Results: Utilization of MWHs was higher among intervention (65.4%) than control women (42.5%). Respondents in both study arms perceived relative advantages to pregnant women staying at MWHs compared to going directly to health facilities when labor begins. MWH stays allowed for clinical staff to routinely check on and educate women, and address complications immediately. Compatibility of the homes with cultural values and needs depended on implementation. While some women from intervention sites complained about overcrowding, women in control sites more often perceived the lack of cleanliness, amenities, and safety as deterrents to utilization. Women at intervention sites received sensitization about MWHs from a wider range of sources, including traditional leaders. Required preparations needed to stay at MWHs (e.g. delivery supplies, food, and childcare) made adoption complex and may have deterred utilization.

Conclusions: The improved MWH model addressed most community concerns around quality. Having opinion leaders who communicate the relative advantage of MWHs to pregnant women and their social networks may facilitate MWH utilization. The complexity of decisions and resources needed to stay at MWHs remains a critical barrier to use. To facilitate equitable adoption of MWHs among the most vulnerable women, planners should explore how to support women during their delivery preparations and MWH stays, particularly regarding food security and lack of social support for childcare.

Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02620436, Registered 02 December 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02620436?term=NCT02620436&rank=1.

Background: Variation in perioperative care persists globally. Consensus discussions may facilitate standardisation, yet the processes used to reach agreement are poorly understood. This study aimed to develop a model for conducting local consensus discussions when implementing standardised perioperative pathways. Specifically, we 1) describe how local consensus discussions are operationalised; 2) identify what guides decision making and consensus between clinicians; and 3) formulate explanatory mechanisms and identify determinants that facilitate consensus discussions.

Methods: A qualitative, modified grounded theory study was conducted in one private hospital in metropolitan Sydney, Australia. Thirty-one participants from clinical disciplines and hospital management/leadership were included. Data were collected from nine semi-structured interviews and 16 h of participant observations during consensus development or implementation meetings. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently until theoretical saturation was achieved. Interviews and field notes were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using coding, constant comparison, detailed memo writing and data interpretation.

Results: Seven individual and contextual factors crucial for building consensus, and eight mechanisms for reaching agreement were identified and integrated into a conceptual model. Seeking evidence to support decision-making emerged as the primary driver of consensus. Strong research evidence in support of a pathway component facilitated swift agreement. Where there was ambiguous evidence for a pathway component, clinicians based their decisions on a desire for professional autonomy, consideration of how their peers practice, patient preferences, practices from external organisations, or the feasibility of implementing the pathway component.

Conclusions: The Consensus Model for Standardising Healthcare provides a map for healthcare organisations seeking to conduct local consensus discussions to reduce variation in care. Our findings advance our understanding of how local consensus discussions are conducted and factors that impact success when standardising care amongst clinicians.

Background: Initial Canadian federal regulations for the abortion pill, mifepristone, had the potential to impede safe and equitable access to this medication. To catalyze evidence-based regulatory change, we engaged health policy, health system, and health services decision makers, and health professional organizations in integrated knowledge translation (iKT), a research approach that engages the users of research as equal partners.

Methods: We conducted a realist evaluation of what iKT strategies worked, for whom, and in what context to impact federal mifepristone regulations. We constructed initial program theories (if-then statements about how iKT worked). We tested the initial program theories using interviews with researchers and knowledge partners and triangulated with analysis of research programme documents. We configured the evidence in relation to the initial program theories, and refined program theories into causal explanatory configurations.

Results: We analyzed 38 interviews with researchers, health professional leaders, advocacy group leaders, and administrative government policy makers, as well as 49 program documents. Our results indicated that researcher partnerships with stakeholders had a meaningful impact on the removal of restrictions. We found key components of the causal explanatory configurations included: researcher motivation to move evidence into action, trusted reputations as credible sources of evidence, strategic partnerships, understanding of health policy processes, and researcher roles as a trusted convenor between key groups and decision makers.

Conclusions: Our study identifies several practical and transferable approaches to impactful iKT. The findings may be of relevance to researchers focused on public health topics subject to stigma.

Background: Maintaining functional status, defined as the ability to perform daily activities such as bathing, dressing, and preparing meals, is central to older adults' quality of life, health, and ability to remain independent. Identifying functional impairments - defined as having difficulty or needing help performing these activities - is essential for clinicians to provide optimal care to older adults, and on a population level, understanding function can help anticipate service needs. Yet uptake of standardized measurement of functional status into routine patient care has been slow and inconsistent due to the burden posed by current tools. The goal of the Patient-Aligned Care Team (PACT) Functional Status Screening Initiative is to implement and evaluate a patient-centered, low-burden intervention to improve identification and management of functional impairment among older veterans in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) primary care settings.

Methods: We will conduct a hybrid type 2 implementation-effectiveness cluster-randomized adaptive trial at 8 VHA sites using the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) to guide implementation and evaluation. During a Pre-Implementation phase, we will engage clinical partners and develop local adaptations to maximize intervention-setting fit. During an Implementation phase, we will launch a standard bundle of implementation strategies (coalition building, champions, technical assistance) and system-level audit and feedback, identify sites with low uptake, and randomize those sites to receive continued standard vs. enhanced strategies (standard strategies plus clinician-level audit and feedback). The primary implementation outcome is reach (proportion of eligible patients at each site who receive screening/assessment) and the primary effectiveness outcome is appropriate management of impairment (proportion of patients with identified impairments who receive related referrals).

Discussion: Implementing routine measurement of functional status in primary care has the potential to improve identification and management of functional impairment for older veterans. Improved management includes increasing access to services and supports for veterans and family caregivers, reducing potentially preventable acute care utilization, and allowing veterans to live in the least restrictive setting for as long as possible. Implementation will also provide data to inform the delivery of proactive interventions to prevent and delay development of functional impairment and improve quality of life, health, and independence.

Trial registration: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on May 7, 2024, at NCT06404970 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ).

Reporting guidelines: Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (Additional file 1).

Background: Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is an evidence-based practice that can identify adolescents who use alcohol and other drugs and support proper referral to treatment. Despite an American College of Surgeons mandate to deliver SBIRT in pediatric trauma care, trauma centers throughout the United States have faced numerous patient, provider, and organizational level barriers to SBIRT implementation. The Implementing Alcohol Misuse Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment Study (IAMSBIRT) aimed to implement SBIRT across 10 pediatric trauma centers using the Science-to-Service Laboratory (SSL), an empirically supported implementation strategy. This manuscript aimed to assess trauma center staff preferences and experience with the didactic training, performance feedback, and ongoing coaching elements of the SSL via a retrospective qualitative process evaluation.

Methods: Nurses, social workers, and site leaders that participated in IAMSBIRT were recruited to complete qualitative exit interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Qualitative interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by two coders using a directed content analysis approach in NVivo software. Codes were then translated into frequently endorsed themes by the IAMSBIRT study research team.

Results: Thirty-six exit interviews were conducted with site leaders, social workers, and nurses across the 10 IAMSBIRT pediatric trauma centers. Findings revealed key strengths as well as areas for improvement across the IAMSBIRT preparation phase and the three elements of the SSL: didactic training, performance feedback, and ongoing coaching. Trauma center staff generally reported that all three elements of the SSL were high quality and helpful for supporting SBIRT implementation. However, staff also noted that performance feedback and ongoing coaching were generally only available to center leadership or to individuals selected by leadership, making it challenging for non-leaders to troubleshoot SBIRT delivery.

Conclusions: Findings from the qualitative process evaluation revealed discrepancies in the experience of the SSL strategy between those in leadership roles and those involved in direct care delivery. These results suggest the need for several modifications to the SSL strategy, including increasing engagement of direct care staff in all elements of the SSL throughout the implementation process.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03297060 . Registered 29 September 2017.

Background: Implementation Science research completed with equity-deserving populations is not well understood or explored. The current opioid epidemic challenges healthcare systems to improve existing practices through implementation of evidence-based interventions. Pregnant persons diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD) is an equity-deserving population that continues to experience stigmatization within our healthcare system. Efforts are being made to implement novel approaches to care for this population; however, the implementation research continues to leave the voices of pregnant persons unheard, compounding the existing stigma and marginalization experienced.

Methods: This debate paper highlights a specific case that explores the implementation of the Eat, Sleep, Console (ESC) model of care, a function-based empowerment model used to guide the care for pregnant persons diagnosed with OUD and their infants. We establish our debate within the conceptual discussion of Nguyen and colleagues (2020), and critically analyze the collaborative research approaches, engaged scholarship, Mode 2 research, co-production, participatory research and IKT, within the context of engaging equity-deserving populations in research. We completed a literature search in CINAHL, Google Scholar, PubMed and Embase using keywords including collaborative research, engagement, equity-deserving, marginalized populations, birthparents, substance use and opioid use disorder with Boolean operators, to support our debate.

Discussion: IKT and Community Based Participatory Action Research (CBPR) were deemed the most aligned approaches within the case, and boast many similarities; however, they are fundamentally distinct. Although CBPR's intentional methods to address social injustices are essential to consider in research with pregnant persons diagnosed with OUD, IKT aligned best within the implementation science inquiry due to its neutral philosophical underpinning and congruent aims in exploring complex implementation science inquiries. A fundamental gap was noted in IKT's intentional considerations to empowerment and equitable engagement of equity-deserving populations in research; therefore, we proposed informing an IKT approach with Edelman's Trauma and Resilience Informed Research Principles and Practice (TRIRPP) Framework.

Background: African Americans experience cardiovascular disease (CVD) disparities, and the burden is greatest in the rural south. Although evidence-based CVD prevention and management programs have been tailored to this context, implementation has been limited and not sustained long-term. To understand how to implement and sustain evidence-based CVD programs at scale, we must explore the perspectives of organizations serving rural African American communities and situate findings within foundational Implementation Science frameworks.

Methods: This study used group concept mapping (GCM) to elicit and synthesize stakeholder perspectives into an action-focused conceptual model depicting factors influencing implementation of evidence-based CVD programs. Representatives of community-based, faith, and healthcare organizations serving African Americans in five rural North Carolina counties were recruited via purposive sampling techniques. Participants (total n = 31) completed three activities: 1) brainstorming in response to an open-ended prompt (n = 31); 2) sorting brainstorm data into wider concepts and rating each in terms of relative importance and feasibility (n = 26); and 3) collaborative interpretation and refinement of the concept map (n = 19). Multivariate statistical analysis was used to generate a concept map. Absolute pattern matches comparing ratings of the relative importance and feasibility of each factor were generated and depicted via ladder graphs.

Results: The final concept map included five factors: Accessibility, Community and Social Factors, Education and Training, Financial/Resource Development, and Organization Capacity and Staffing. There was high agreement (r = .98) between ratings of importance and feasibility. Education and Training, both within organizations and the wider community, was rated as the most important and feasible factor and Financial/Resource Development was the least important and feasible.

Conclusions: The concept map emphasizes aspects of organizations (inner setting), their surrounding community (outer setting), and individual stakeholders (participants, implementers) as influencing implementation of evidence-based CVD prevention and management programs in rural African American communities. The nature of the intervention or implementation processes were de-emphasized. Organizations in rural African American communities may feel equipped to implement a range of evidence-based programs, provided strategies address the contextual and structural barriers that impede their success. Group concept mapping helped distill and prioritize initial leverage points for action in our project catchment area by facilitating a community-engaged process of data generation and interpretation.

Background: Early diagnosis is crucial to the optimal management of patients with cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or AD-related dementias. For some patients, early detection of cognitive impairment enables access to disease-modifying therapies. For all patients, it allows access to psychosocial supports. Patients typically first present their concerns about their cognition to a primary care provider, but in this setting, cognitive impairment is commonly underdiagnosed. There is also high variability in how cognitive evaluations are performed. We sought to understand barriers to and facilitators of cognitive evaluations in primary care, map barriers to implementation strategies, and gain consensus from stakeholders on possible strategies to improve dementia diagnosis in primary care.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews conducted with primary care providers (PCPs). We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to inform our question guide and analysis, and incorporated chart-stimulated recall - using actual patients who had cognitive complaints who had presented to these providers - to understand clinicians' medical decision-making processes. These data were used to map identified barriers and facilitators to targeted implementation strategies. Then, this candidate list of strategies was presented to an expert stakeholder panel including clinicians and clinical operations specialists. Through a modified Delphi process, the list was narrowed to select the most promising strategies to incorporate in an intervention to improve cognitive evaluations in primary care.

Results: Twenty PCPs were interviewed and mentioned barriers included lack of expertise to perform or interpret an assessment, time pressures, lack of incentives, competing priorities, lack of decision-making supports, and limited access to dementia specialists. Facilitators included the presence of an informant or caregiver and having additional staff to conduct cognitive testing. Implementation mapping resulted in a list of 15 candidate strategies. Using the modified Delphi process, these were narrowed to six.

Conclusions: We used a rigorous process to identify barriers to and facilitators of cognitive assessments in primary care, identify promising implementation strategies to address these barriers, and obtain the feedback of front-line users on these strategies. This holds substantial promise for improving cognitive assessments in primary care in future implementation trials.

Background: Implementation strategies are essential to deliver evidence-based programs that align with local context, resources, priorities, and preferences. However, it is not always clear how specific strategies are selected (vs. others) and strategies are not always operationalized clearly, distinctly, and dynamically. Implementation logic models provide one useful way to conceptualize the role and selection of implementation strategies, plan evaluation of their intended impacts on implementation and effectiveness outcomes, and to communicate key aspects of a project.

Methods: This paper describes our initial plans, experiences, and lessons learned from applying implementation logic models in the Quadruple Aim Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) a large multi-study program funded by the Veterans Health Administration (VA). We began with two primary implementation strategies based on our earlier work (i.e., Iterative RE-AIM and Relational Facilitation) that were applied across three different health outcomes studies.

Results: Our implementation strategies evolved over time, and new strategies were added. This evolution and reasons for changes are summarized and illustrated with the resulting logic models, both for the overall Quadruple Aim QUERI and the three specific projects. We found that implementation strategies are often not discrete, and their delivery and adaptation is dynamic and should be guided by emerging data and evolving context. Review of logic models across projects was an efficient and useful approach for understanding similarities and differences across projects.

Conclusions: Implementation logic models are helpful for clarifying key objectives and issues for both study teams and implementation partners. There are challenges in logic model construction and presentation when multiple strategies are employed, and when strategies change over time. We recommend presentation of both original and periodically updated project models and provide recommendations for future use of implementation logic models.