Implementation science communications最新文献

Background: Pediatric depression is a global concern that has fueled efforts for enhanced detection and treatment engagement. As one example, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends depression screening for adolescents ages 12-18 years. While many health systems have implemented components of depression screening protocols, there is limited evidence of effective follow-up for pediatric depression. A key barrier is timely team communication and coordination across clinicians and staff within and across service areas for prompt service linkage. However, team effectiveness interventions have been shown to improve team processes and outcomes and can be applied in healthcare settings.

Methods: This project aims to refine and test a team communication training implementation strategy to improve implementation of an existing pediatric depression screening protocol in a large pediatric healthcare system. The team will be defined as part of the study but is expected to include medical assistants, nurses, physicians, and behavioral health clinicians within and across departments. The implementation strategy will target team mechanisms at the team-level (i.e., intra-organizational alignment and implementation climate) and team member-level (i.e., communication, coordination, psychological safety, and shared cognition). First, the project will use mixed methods to refine the team training strategy to fit the organizational context and workflows. Next, a hybrid type 3 implementation-effectiveness pilot trial will assess the initial effectiveness of the team communication training (implementation strategy) paired with the current universal depression screening protocol (clinical intervention) on implementation outcomes (i.e., feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, workflow efficiency) and clinical/services outcomes (increased frequency of needed screening and reduced time to service linkage). Finally, the study will assess mechanisms at the team and team member levels that may affect implementation outcomes.

Discussion: Team communication training is hypothesized to lead to improved, efficient, and effective decision-making to increase the compliance with depression screening and timely service linkage. Findings are expected to yield better understanding and examples of how to optimize team communication to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the pediatric depression screening-to-treatment cascade. This should also culminate in improved implementation outcomes including patient engagement critical to address the youth mental health crisis.

Trial registration: NCT06527196. Trial Sponsor: University of California San Diego.

Background: HIV clinical guidelines recommend hypertension detection and management to lower cardiovascular disease risk, but these have not been effectively implemented for people living with HIV (PWH). Addressing this implementation gap requires community-engaged implementation studies focused on addressing implementation barriers specific to the HIV care context.

Methods: This protocol describes a type 2 effectiveness-implementation hybrid study conducted in nine primary care clinics in Johannesburg. The study will evaluate the effect of implementation strategies on guideline-recommended blood pressure assessment and management in HIV clinics and the effects of assessment/management on patient blood pressure. A stepped-wedge, cluster randomized study design was used to randomize clinics to the time at which they receive the implementation strategies and patient intervention. The implementation strategies tested include identifying and preparing care champions, changing record systems, conducting ongoing training, providing audit and feedback, and changing the physical structure/equipment. The patient intervention tested includes detection of elevated blood pressure, educational materials, lifestyle modification advice, and medication where needed. Implementation outcomes include adoption, fidelity (co-primary outcome), cost, and maintenance of the blood pressure assessment protocol in participating clinics, while patient outcomes include reach, effectiveness (co-primary outcome), and long-term effects of the intervention on patient blood pressure. These will be assessed via direct observation, study records, staff logs, medical chart reviews, and patient and healthcare worker surveys. To examine effects on the implementation (intervention fidelity) and effectiveness (patient blood pressure changes) co-primary outcomes, we will use the standard Hussey and Hughes model for analysis of stepped-wedge designs which includes fixed effects for both interventions and time periods, and a random effect for sites. Finally, we will examine the costs for the implementation strategies, healthcare worker time, and patient-facing intervention materials, as well as the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the intervention using study records, patient surveys, and a time and motion assessment.

Discussion: This study will address knowledge gaps around implementation of cardiovascular disease preventive practices in HIV care in South Africa. In doing so, it will provide a dual opportunity to promote evidence-based care in the South African HIV care context and help refine implementation research methods to better serve HIV populations globally.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05846503. Registered on May 6, 2023. https://classic.

Clinicaltrials: gov/ct2/show/NCT05846503 .

Background: The cost of implementation is typically not accounted for in published economic evaluations, which determine the relative value for money of health innovations and are important for allocating scarce resources. Despite key papers outlining relevant implementation costs, they continue to be under reported in the literature and often not considered in practice. This study sought to understand and outline current practices for capturing the costs associated with implementation efforts, with examples from the digital health setting.

Methods: A qualitative study of semi-structured interviews with purposefully sampled experts in implementation science, health economics and/or digital health was conducted. The interview guide was informed by a literature review and was pilot tested. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. A hybrid inductive/deductive framework analysis was conducted using thematic analysis to elicit key concepts related to the research question.

Results: Interviews were conducted with sixteen participants with specialist expertise in implementation science (n = 8), health economics (n = 6), and/or digital health (n = 8). Five participants were experienced in more than one field. Four key themes were elicited from the data: difficulty identifying and collecting implementation cost data; variation in approaches for collecting implementation cost data; the value of implementation costs; and collaboration enables implementation costing. Broadly, while interviewees recognised implementation costs as important, only some costs were considered in practice likely due to the perceived ill-defined boundaries and inconsistencies in terminology. A variety of methods were used to collect and estimate implementation costs; the most frequent approach was staff time tracking. Multidisciplinary collaboration facilitated this process, but the burden of collecting the necessary data was also highlighted.

Conclusions: In current practice, standardised methods are not commonly used for data collection or estimation of implementation costs. Improved data collection through standardised practices may support greater transparency and confidence in implementation cost estimates. Although participants had industry exposure, most were also academic researchers and findings may not be representative of non-academic industry settings.

Background: Although significant advances have been made in the conceptualization of sustainability, having pragmatic, psychometrically valid tools remains a need within the field. Our previous work has developed frameworks and tools to assess both program sustainability and clinical sustainability capacity. This work presents new, psychometrically tested short versions of the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool (PSAT) and the Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool (CSAT).

Methods: These methods were conducted in identical, parallel processes for the CSAT and PSAT. Previously collected data for these instruments was obtained across a variety of settings, contexts, and participants. We first conducted testing to determine cronbach's alpha of shortened domains (3 items each) and then conducted Confirmatory Factor Analysis to ensure that the domains were still appropriate for the tool. After, the team met to review the results and determine the final versions of the short PSAT and short CSAT.

Results: The short PSAT retained cronbach's alpha's of 0.82 - 0.91 for each domain of the tool, with which maintains excellent reliability for the tool. Confirmatory factor analysis highlights that the short PSAT retains conceptual distinction across the 8 domains, with CFI scores greater than 0.90, RMSEA scores below 0.6, and SRMR scores less than 0.08. The short CSAT had cronbach's alpha of 0.84 - 0.92 for each of the domains of the tool, also suggesting excellent reliability of the domains within the measure after dropping two items/domain. Confirmatory factor analysis of the short CSAT meets the same specifications as above, again highlighting conceptual distinction across the domains.

Conclusion: Each tool was able to be shortened to three items per domain while maintaining strong psychometric properties. This results in a tool that takes less time to complete, meeting one of the key calls for pragmatic measures within implementation science. This advances our abilities to measure and test sustainability within implementation science.

Background: International clinical guidelines recommend that smoking, nutrition, alcohol consumption, physical activity and gestational weight gain (SNAP-W) be addressed as part of routine antenatal care throughout pregnancy. However, guideline recommendations are poorly implemented, and few antenatal care recipients routinely receive the recommended care. There is a need to establish the determinants (barriers and enablers) to care delivery to inform strategies to improve implementation. This systematic review aimed to synthesize qualitative and quantitative evidence of the barriers and enablers to the routine delivery of antenatal care targeting SNAP-W health risks.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Seven databases were searched for relevant studies published between January 2001 and November 2023. Study findings were coded and analysed according to the domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

Results: Forty-nine studies were included in the review, 27 qualitative studies and 22 quantitative studies. The studies were conducted in 14 countries. Data were collected from 7146 antenatal care providers (midwives, Aboriginal health workers, obstetricians, medical officers, general practitioners) and 352 barriers and enablers were identified. Across all SNAP-W health risk and antenatal care provider groups, the predominant TDF domain was 'environmental context and resources', identified in 96% of studies. Barriers within this domain included insufficient time, limited access to and quality of resources, and limited organisational supports. 'Beliefs about consequences' was the second most common TDF domain, reported in 67% of studies, particularly studies of care related to alcohol use, nutrition/ physical activity/ gestational weight gain and those involving midwives, multidisciplinary practitioners and general practitioners. 'Optimism' was the second most common TDF domain for studies of smoking-related care and involving obstetricians, gynaecologists, and other mixed medical professions.

Conclusions: It is critical that determinants related to environmental context and resources including time, resources and organisational supports are considered in the development of strategies to support the implementation of recommended antenatal care related to SNAP-W risks. Strategies addressing clinician beliefs about consequences and optimism may also be needed to support the implementation of care related to specific health behaviours and by specific antenatal care provider groups.

Registration: The review protocol was prospectively registered with Prospero: CRD42022353084; 22 October 2022.

Background: Generating and analyzing process maps can help identify and prioritize barriers to the implementation of evidence-based practices in healthcare settings. Guidance on how to systematically apply and report these methods in implementation research is scant. We describe a method combining a qualitative approach to developing process maps with a quantitative evaluation of maps drawn from the quality improvement literature called failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA).

Methods: We provide an outline and guidance for how investigators can use process mapping with FMEA to identify and prioritize barriers when implementing evidence-based clinical interventions. Suggestions for methods and reporting were generated based on established procedures for process mapping with FMEA and through review of original research papers which apply both methods in healthcare settings. We provide case examples to illustrate how this approach can be operationalized in implementation research.

Results: The methodology of process mapping with FMEA can be divided into four broad phases: 1) formulating a plan, 2) generating process maps to identify and organize barriers over time, 3) prioritizing barriers through FMEA, and 4) devising an implementation strategy to address priority barriers. We identified 14 steps across the four phases. Two illustrative examples are provided. Case 1 describes the implementation of referrals to chiropractic care for adults with low back pain in primary care clinics. Case 2 describes the implementation of a family navigation intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder seeking care in pediatric clinics. For provisional guidance for reporting, we propose the REporting Process mapping and Analysis for Implementation Research (REPAIR) checklist.

Conclusions: Process mapping with FMEA can elucidate barriers and facilitators to successful implementation of evidence-based clinical interventions. This paper provides initial guidance for more systematic applications of this methodology in implementation research. Future research should use a consensus-building approach, such as a multidisciplinary Delphi panel, to further delineate the reporting standards for studies that use process mapping with FMEA.

Objective: To identify innovation and implementation determinants of HIV testing, diagnosis, and linkage-to-care in the U.S.

Data sources and study setting: Between November 2020 and January 2022, a broad search strategy was employed in three literature databases: Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science.

Study design: A systematic review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement.

Data collection/extraction methods: A team of master's and Ph.D.-level researchers screened eligible studies against the inclusion criteria and extracted the data using COVIDENCE software in pairs with consensus performed by a senior member of the team. Barriers and facilitators were extracted and analyzed according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Frequency of determinants across studies was mapped according to CFIR, valence, study design, delivery setting, unit of analysis, population of interest, region of the U.S., and year.

Results: We identified 1,739 implementation and innovation determinants from 186 articles. Most determinants were for HIV testing rather than linkage-to-care. Most determinants were identified in the inner setting and individuals domains of CFIR, with the fewest identified in the process and innovations domains. Determinants of providers were only slightly more frequently identified than determinants of recipients. However, determinants of organizations and systems were rarely identified.

Conclusion: This review provides a synthesis of innovation and implementation determinants of HIV testing and linkage-to-care using the most-cited implementation science (IS) framework, CFIR. This synthesis enables the larger field of HIV science to utilize IS in efforts to end the HIV epidemic and positions IS to consider the application of IS frameworks to fields like HIV.

Background: The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project identified 73 strategies for supporting the implementation of a novel intervention and evidence-informed practices. In this paper, we explore convenings, which engage stakeholders in proactive dialogues, as a mechanism to deliver multiple strategies that support sites adapting and implementing evidence-informed bundled interventions for Black women with HIV.

Methods: We use an instrumental case study design to explore strategies embedded in biannual convenings hosted by the Black Women First Initiative (BWF) Evaluation and Technical Assistance Provider (ETAP). Data sources including planning documents, direct observation of the convenings and analysis of convening attendee feedback surveys were analyzed.

Results: Using instrumental case study design, we found that convenings were a helpful tool that allowed for cross-site communication and collaboration. Communal re-examination of implementation strategies, coupled with training and network-weaving, created a rich learning environment to identify potential intervention adaptations and changes, unify on data collection, and prepare to test these adaptations at each respective site.

Conclusions: We discuss lessons learned when using convenings to help health care and community-based settings collectively explore and address adaptation and implementation barriers as they implement evidence-informed interventions to improve health outcomes for populations affected by chronic conditions, such as HIV.

Background: Electronic Prospective Surveillance Models (ePSMs) remotely monitor the rehabilitation needs of people with cancer via patient-reported outcomes at pre-defined time points during cancer care and deliver support, including links to self-management education and community programs, and recommendations for further clinical screening and rehabilitation referrals. Previous guidance on implementing ePSMs lacks sufficient detail on approaches to select implementation strategies for these systems. The purpose of this article is to describe how we developed an implementation plan for REACH, an ePSM system designed for breast, colorectal, lymphoma, and head and neck cancers.

Methods: Implementation Mapping guided the process of developing the implementation plan. We integrated findings from a scoping review and qualitative study our team conducted to identify determinants to implementation, implementation actors and actions, and relevant outcomes. Determinants were categorized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and the implementation outcomes taxonomy guided the identification of outcomes. Next, determinants were mapped to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy of strategies using the CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool. The list of strategies produced was refined through discussion amongst our team and feedback from knowledge users considering each strategy's feasibility and importance rating via the Go-Zone plot, feasibility and applicability to the clinical contexts, and use among other ePSMs reported in our scoping review.

Results: Of the 39 CFIR constructs, 22 were identified as relevant determinants. Clinic managers, information technology teams, and healthcare providers with key roles in patient education were identified as important actors. The CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool resulted in 50 strategies with Level 1 endorsement and 13 strategies with Level 2 endorsement. The final list of strategies included 1) purposefully re-examine the implementation, 2) tailor strategies, 3) change record systems, 4) conduct educational meetings, 5) distribute educational materials, 6) intervene with patients to enhance uptake and adherence, 7) centralize technical assistance, and 8) use advisory boards and workgroups.

Conclusion: We present a generalizable method that incorporates steps from Implementation Mapping, engages various knowledge users, and leverages implementation science frameworks to facilitate the development of an implementation strategy. An evaluation of implementation success using the implementation outcomes framework is underway.

The United States has seen increasing trends of maternal mortality in recent years. Within this health crisis there are large disparities whereby underserved and minoritized populations are bearing a larger burden of maternal morbidity and mortality. While new interventions to improve maternal health are being developed, there are opportunities for greater integration of existing evidence-based interventions into routine practice, especially for underserved populations, including those residing in maternity care deserts. In fact, over 80 percent of maternal deaths are preventable with currently available interventions. To spur equitable implementation of existing interventions, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute launched the Maternal-Health Community Implementation Program (MH-CIP) in 2021. In 2023, the National Institutes of Health's Implementing a Maternal health and PRegnancy Outcomes Vision for Everyone (IMPROVE) initiative partnered with the NHLBI to launch the IMPROVE Community Implementation Program (IMPROVE-CIP). By design, CIPs engage disproportionately impacted communities and partner with academic researchers to conduct implementation research. This commentary overviews the impetus for creating these programs, program goals, structure, and offers a high-level overview of the research currently supported. Lastly, the potential outcomes of these programs are contextualized within the landscape of maternal health initiatives in the United States.