Implementation science communications最新文献

Introduction: The increasing rates of HIV among Latino men who have sex with men (MSM) necessitate innovative and rigorous studies to evaluate prevention and treatment strategies. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a highly effective tool in preventing HIV acquisition and plays a crucial role in the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. initiative. However, there is a scarcity of PrEP research specifically focused on Latino MSM, and the factors influencing its implementation remain largely unknown.

Methods: To address this gap, we conducted a comprehensive review exploring the determinants (barriers and facilitators) of PrEP implementation among Latino MSM, as well as the change methods (implementation strategies and adjunctive interventions) that have been evaluated to promote its adoption. Our review encompassed 43 peer-reviewed articles examining determinants and four articles assessing change methods. Determinants were coded using the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 2.0) to understand the multilevel barriers and facilitators associated with implementation.

Results: The majority of research has focused on PrEP recipients (i.e., patients), primarily examining their awareness and willingness to use PrEP. Fewer studies have explored the factors influencing clinicians and service delivery systems. Additionally, the evaluation of change methods to enhance clinician adoption and adherence to PrEP and recipient adherence to PrEP has been limited.

Conclusion: It is evident that there is a need for culturally adapted strategies tailored specifically for Latino MSM, as the current literature remains largely unexplored in this regard. By incorporating principles from implementation science, we can gain a clearer understanding of the knowledge, skills, and roles necessary for effective cultural adaptations. Future research should emphasize factors influencing implementation from a clinician standpoint and focus on innovative change methods to increase PrEP awareness, reach, adoption, and sustained adherence among Latino MSM.

Background: Innovative models of care have the potential to improve the sustainability of health systems by improving patient and provider experiences and population outcomes while simultaneously reducing costs. Yet, it is challenging to recognize the distinctive points during research and quality improvement processes that contribute to sustainment of effective interventions. The business concept of an inflection point-the position on the curve of a trajectory where the progress in implementation of an intervention is accelerated or decelerated-may be useful to understand implementation and improve sustainability and ultimately sustainment of effective interventions. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively identify and describe strategic inflection points that accelerated the sustainability process and led to the sustainment of Alberta Family Integrated Care.

Methods: This qualitative study was conducted in Alberta, Canada and employed an interpretive description design. Purposively sampled documents (proposals, project management plans, reports to funders and sponsors, meeting minutes, and fidelity audit and feedback checklists) from the Alberta Family Integrated Care cluster randomized controlled trial and quality improvement project constituted data for this study.

Results: To accelerate sustainability in the research context, we identified (1) alignment with strategic priorities, (2) iterative, user-centered co-design, and (3) contextualization of implementation as strategic inflection points. To accelerate sustainability in the health system context, we identified (1) the learning health system, (2) enduring partnerships, (3) responsivity to societal and system change, (4) embedded governance, and (5) intentional integration into the health system as strategic inflection points. Capitalizing on these strategic inflection points led to sustainment of Alberta Family Integrated Care in the provincial health system.

Conclusions: We identified key inflection points in the research and health system contexts that led to sustainment of Alberta Family Integrated Care. By anticipating, recognizing, and leveraging inflection points in the sustainability process, researchers may be able to accelerate implementation and achieve sustainment of multi-component interventions in complex systems.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02879799. Registration date: May 27, 2016. Protocol version: June 9, 2016; version 2. Protocol publication: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2181-3 .

Background: Patients presenting to Emergency Departments (ED) with opioid use disorder may be candidates for buprenorphine treatment, making EDs an appropriate setting to initiate this underused, but clinically proven therapy. Hospitals are devoting increased efforts to routinizing buprenorphine initiation in the ED where clinically appropriate, with the greatest successes occurring in academic medical centers. Overall, however, clinician participation in these efforts is suboptimal. Hospitals need more information to inform the standardized implementation of these programs nationally. Using an implementation science framework, we investigated ED providers' concerns about ED buprenorphine programs and their willingness to prescribe buprenorphine in the ED.

Methods: We conducted Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)-informed interviews with 11 ED staff in Nevada and analyzed the transcripts using a six-step thematic approach. Results were organized within the CFIR 1.0 domains of inner setting, outer setting, intervention characteristics, and individual characteristics; potential implementation strategies were recommended.

Results: Physicians expressed that the ED is a suitable location for prescribing buprenorphine. However, they expressed concerns about: information gaps in the prescribing protocols (inner setting), patient outcomes beyond the ED, buprenorphine effectiveness and appropriate timing of treatment initiation (intervention characteristics), and their own competence in managing opioid withdrawal (individual characteristics). Some were anxious about patients' outcomes and continuity of care in the community (outer setting), others desired access to prospective data that demonstrate buprenorphine effectiveness. Additional concerns included a lack of availability of the required support to prescribe buprenorphine, a lack of physicians' experience and competence, and concerns about opioid withdrawal. Recommended implementation strategies to address these concerns include: designating personnel at the ED to bridge the information gap, engaging emergency physicians through educational meetings, creating a community of practice, facilitating mentorship opportunities, and leveraging existing collaborative learning platforms.

Conclusion: Overall, physicians in our study believed that implementing a buprenorphine program in the ED is appropriate, but had concerns. Implementation strategies could be deployed to address concerns at multiple levels to increase physician willingness and program uptake.

Background: Implementing research evidence into clinical practice is challenging. This study aim was to explore implementation of two intrapartum trials with compelling findings: BUMPES (position in second stage of labour in nulliparous women with epidural), and RESPITE (remifentanil intravenous patient-controlled analgesia).

Methods: A qualitative interview study set in UK National Health Service Trusts and Universities. Purposively sampled investigators from RESPITE and BUMPES trials and clinicians providing intrapartum care: midwives, anaesthetists, and obstetricians, were recruited using existing networks and snowball sampling. Semi-structured virtual interviews were conducted. Thematic analysis was underpinned by Capability Opportunity Motivation Behaviour Change Framework.

Results: Twenty-nine interview participants across 19 maternity units: 11 clinical academics, 10 midwives, 4 obstetricians, 4 anaesthetists. Most (25/29) were aware of one or both trials. BUMPES had been implemented in 4/19 units (one original trial site) and RESPITE in 3/19 units (two trial sites). Access to sufficient resources, training, exposure to interventions, support from leaders, and post-trial dissemination and implementation activities all facilitated uptake of interventions. Some clinicians were opposed to the intervention or disagreed with trial conclusions. However competing priorities in terms of staff time and a plethora of initiatives in maternity care, emerged as a key barrier to implementation.

Conclusions: Compelling trial findings were not implemented widely, and numerous barriers and facilitators were identified. Large-scale improvement programmes and evidence-based national guidelines may mean single trials have limited potential to change practice. There is a need to examine how intervention implementation is prioritised to optimise safety outcomes in the context of workforce restrictions, limited resources and large arrays of competing priorities including statutory requirements, that have increased in maternity care.

Background: Over 80% of people who experience a stroke present with residual impairment of the upper extremity, such as the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand. However, rarely do stroke rehabilitation practitioners (e.g., occupational therapists) use standardized outcome measures to objectively evaluate upper extremity function. Accordingly, the purpose of this project was to develop a bundle of implementation strategies that supports practitioners' adoption of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity in stroke rehabilitation practice.

Methods: We used tenets of Implementation Mapping to guide the development of our implementation strategy bundle. We partnered with one, large academic health system serving over 200 stroke patients annually through intensive rehabilitation care. Strategies were selected and developed through a multi-method process that included a review of the literature, qualitative input from our health system's practitioners and managers, and expert consultation. We also specified the hypothesized implementation "mechanisms" our strategies intended to change. Practitioners' adoption (yes/no) of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment was calculated by analyzing electronic health record documentation of the 6-month time frame before strategies were deployed compared to the 6-month time frame after deployment.

Results: Practitioners were exposed to the following implementation strategies to support Fugl-Meyer adoption: conduct educational meetings, prepare outcome measure champions, provide equipment, develop training materials, and adapt documentation systems. In the 6-months before deployment of our implementation strategies, practitioners implemented the Fugl-Meyer with 14.8% of stroke patients. In the six months after deployment, adoption of the Fugl-Meyer increased to 73.8% (p < .001).

Conclusions: When systematically developed in collaboration with health system partners, a bundle of implementation strategies may support outcome measure adoption in stroke rehabilitation. Improving the use of standardized outcome measures is of paramount importance in stroke rehabilitation to objectively monitor patients' progress or decline, to demonstrate the value of rehabilitation services for enhancing patients' recovery, and to advocate for continued reimbursement for rehabilitation care. Future opportunities lie in further specifying the mechanisms through which implementation strategies are intended to work and how those mechanisms contribute to strategy effectiveness.

Trial registration: NCT registration: NCT04888416; May 06, 2021.

Background: Longer-acting cabotegravir (CAB) is a novel, safe, and efficacious pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention. As we near a time for CAB scale-up, the experience of global leaders in PrEP research and implementation can be leveraged to identify optimal strategies for scaling and integrating CAB into existing PrEP infrastructure worldwide.

Methods: We recruited leaders of HIV prevention clinical trials and large PrEP programs through a combination of purposive and snowball sampling for participation in individual interviews. We conducted interviews using a semi-structured guide that compared CAB to oral PrEP and sought perspectives on barriers and strategies for CAB scale-up. Interviews were conducted virtually, audio recorded, and transcribed. We used thematic analysis, grounded in an adapted version of the Intervention Scalability Assessment Tool (ISAT), to identify critical elements for optimizing delivery of CAB.

Results: From October 2021 to April 2022, we interviewed 30 participants with extensive experience in PrEP research, care, and programming. Participants worked in all seven WHO regions and reported a median of 20 years working in HIV and 10 years in PrEP. Participants agreed that CAB was efficacious and discrete, therefore having the potential to address current concerns about oral PrEP adherence and stigma. Participants indicated direct and indirect costs for provider training, expansion of existing medical infrastructure, and the current medication cost of CAB as major concerns for roll out. The true cost to the end-user and health system were unknown. There were some conflicting strategies on how to best address product targeting, presentation of efficacy, and timing of product availability with scale-up. Some thought that targeting CAB for the general population could normalize PrEP and decrease stigma, while others thought that prioritizing key populations could optimize impact by targeting those with highest risk. Overall, participants emphasized that to ensure successful CAB scale-up, communities and stakeholders must be involved at every stage of planning and implementation.

Conclusions: Our evaluation found that although there is a clear and urgent need for additional HIV PrEP options beyond daily oral PrEP, CAB scale-up must be thoughtful, flexible, and based in lessons learned from oral PrEP rollout.

Background: Back pain is very common and a leading cause of disability worldwide. Due to health care system inequalities, Indigenous communities have a disproportionately higher prevalence of injury and acute and chronic diseases compared to the general Canadian population. Indigenous communities, particularly in northern Canada, have limited access to evidence-based spine care. Strategies established in collaboration with Indigenous peoples are needed to address unmet healthcare needs, including spine care (chiropractic and movement program) services. This study aimed to understand the views and perspectives of Cross Lake community leaders and clinicians working at Cross Lake Nursing Station (CLNS) in northern Manitoba regarding the implementation of the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) model of spine care (MoC) and related implementation strategies.

Method: A qualitative exploratory design using an interpretivist paradigm was used. Twenty community partners were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews underpinned by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) adapted to capture pertinent information. Data were analyzed deductively and inductively, and the interpretation of findings were explored in consultation with community members and partners.

Results: Community leaders (n = 9) and physicians, nurses, and allied health workers (n = 11) emphasized: 1) the importance of contextualizing the MoC (triaging and care pathway) and proposed new services through in-person community engagement; 2) the need and desire for local non-pharmacological spine care approaches; and 3) streamlining patient triage and CLNS workflow. Recommendations for the streamlining included reducing managerial/administrative duties, educating new incoming clinicians, incorporating follow-up appointments for spine pain patients, and establishing an electronic medical record system along with a patient portal. Suggestions regarding how to sustain the new spine care services included providing transportation, protecting allocated clinic space, resolving insurance coverage discrepancies, addressing misconceptions about chiropractic care, instilling the value of physical activity for self-care and pain relief, and a short-term (30-day) incentivised movement program which considers a variety of movement options and offers a social component after each session.

Conclusion: Community partners were favorable to the inclusion of a refined GSCI MoC. Adapting the TDF to unique Indigenous needs may help understand how best to implement the MoC in communities with similar needs.

Background: Depression is the most diagnosed mental health condition among people living with HIV. Collaborative care is an effective intervention for depression, typically delivered in primary care settings. The HIV Translating Initiatives for Depression into Effective Solutions (HITIDES) clinical intervention involves a depression care team housed off-site that supports depression care delivery by HIV care providers. In a randomized controlled trial, HITIDES significantly improved depression symptoms for veterans living with HIV and delivered cost savings. However, no HIV clinics in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) have implemented HITIDES; as such, it is unclear what implementation strategies are necessary to launch and sustain this intervention.

Methods: This hybrid type-3 effectiveness-implementation trial examines the implementation and effectiveness of HITIDES in 8 VHA HIV clinics randomly assigned to one of two implementation arms. Each arm uses a different implementation strategy package. Arm 1 includes an intervention operations guide; an on-site clinical champion who, with the help of a peer community of practice, will work with local clinicians and leadership to implement HITIDES at their site; and patient engagement in implementation tools. Arm 2 includes all strategies from Arm 1 with assistance from an external facilitator. The primary implementation outcomes is reach; secondary outcomes include adoption, implementation dose, depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation. We will conduct a budget impact analysis of the implementation strategy packages. We hypothesize that Arm 2 will be associated with greater reach and adoption and that Arm 1 will be less costly.

Discussion: Preliminary work identified implementation strategies acceptable to veterans living with HIV and HIV care providers; however, the effectiveness and cost of these strategies are unknown. While the depression care team can deliver services consistently with high quality, the ability of the depression care team to engage with HIV care providers at sites is unknown. Findings from this study will be used to inform selection of implementation strategies for a broad rollout to enhance depression and suicide care for people living with HIV.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05901272, Registered 10 May 2023, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05901272.

Background: Implementation science scholars have made significant progress identifying factors that enable or obstruct the implementation of evidence-based interventions, and testing strategies that may modify those factors. However, little research sheds light on how or why strategies work, in what contexts, and for whom. Studying implementation mechanisms-the processes responsible for change-is crucial for advancing the field of implementation science and enhancing its value in facilitating equitable policy and practice change. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded a conference series to achieve two aims: (1) develop a research agenda on implementation mechanisms, and (2) actively disseminate the research agenda to research, policy, and practice audiences. This article presents the resulting research agenda, including priorities and actions to encourage its execution.

Method: Building on prior concept mapping work, in a semi-structured, 3-day, in-person working meeting, 23 US-based researchers used a modified nominal group process to generate priorities and actions for addressing challenges to studying implementation mechanisms. During each of the three 120-min sessions, small groups responded to the prompt: "What actions need to be taken to move this research forward?" The groups brainstormed actions, which were then shared with the full group and discussed with the support of facilitators trained in structured group processes. Facilitators grouped critical and novel ideas into themes. Attendees voted on six themes they prioritized to discuss in a fourth, 120-min session, during which small groups operationalized prioritized actions. Subsequently, all ideas were collated, combined, and revised for clarity by a subset of the authorship team.

Results: From this multistep process, 150 actions emerged across 10 priority areas, which together constitute the research agenda. Actions included discrete activities, projects, or products, and ways to shift how research is conducted to strengthen the study of implementation mechanisms.

Conclusions: This research agenda elevates actions to guide the selection, design, and evaluation of implementation mechanisms. By delineating recommended actions to address the challenges of studying implementation mechanisms, this research agenda facilitates expanding the field of implementation science, beyond studying what works to how and why strategies work, in what contexts, for whom, and with which interventions.