Implementation science communications最新文献

Background: Adaptation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) often occurs when implemented in new local contexts and settings. It is unclear, however, during which phase of implementation adaptations are most frequently made and how these changes may impact the fidelity, effectiveness, and sustainability of the EBI. Pediatric Early Warning Systems (PEWS) are EBIs for early identification of deterioration in hospitalized children with cancer. This study evaluates adaptations of PEWS made among resource-variable pediatric oncology hospitals in Latin America implementing and sustaining PEWS.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among pediatric oncology centers participating in Proyecto Escala de Valoración de Alerta Temprana (EVAT), a collaborative to implement PEWS. Adaptations to PEWS were assessed via 3 multiple choice and 1 free text question administered as part of a larger study of PEWS sustainability. Descriptive statistics quantitatively described what, when, and why adaptations were made. Qualitative analysis of free text responses applied the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications Expanded (FRAME) to describe respondent perspectives on PEWS adaptations.

Results: We analyzed 2,094 responses from 58 pediatric oncology centers across 19 countries in Latin America. Participants were predominantly female (82.5%), consisting of nurses (57.4%) and physicians (38.2%) who were PEWS implementation leaders (22.1%) or clinical staff (69.1%). Respondents described multiple PEWS adaptations across all implementation phases, with most occurring during the planning and piloting of EBIs. Adaptations included changes to PEWS content (algorithm, scoring tool, terminology, and use frequency) and context (personnel delivering or population). Respondents felt adaptations streamlined monitoring, enhanced effectiveness, improved workflow, increased comprehension, and addressed local resource limitations. Qualitative analysis indicated that most adaptations were categorized as fidelity consistent and planned; fidelity inconsistent adaptations were unplanned responses to unanticipated challenges.

Conclusion: Adaptations made to PEWS across implementation phases demonstrate how EBIs are adapted to fit dynamic, real-world clinical settings. This research advances implementation science by highlighting EBI adaptation as a potential strategy to promote widespread implementation and sustainability in hospitals of all resource levels.

Background: In clinical oncology practice, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential for assessing the symptom burden, quality of life, and psychological status of patients. However, there remains a gap between the use of PROs in an oncologic setting and its implementation. Furthermore, numerous reviews in PRO implementation are often based on one particular technology, setting, or health condition, making it difficult to obtain a comprehensive and coherent summary of available evidence to help plan and undertake implementation. This systematic review aims to identify and integrate enablers and barriers to PRO implementation through the comprehensive framework for implementation research (CFIR) to provide a reference for implementing patient-reported outcomes management in oncology settings.

Methods: This review strictly observed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were systematically searched using a three-step search strategy. The search was limited from the inception of each database to April 2024. Articles describing facilitators and barriers to implementing PROs in clinical oncology practice were included. Two researchers screened the literature independently, and the quality assessment of cross-sectional, qualitative, and mixed studies was completed using the critical appraisal tools recommended by Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and the mixed methods assessment tool, respectively. Basic information about the included studies and determinants affecting PRO implementation was extracted, and coding categorization of facilitators and barriers was completed based on the 48 constructs provided by the CFIR framework.

Results: We included 30 studies from 5,649 search results, including 25 original and 5 review studies. The quality of the literature for qualitative studies was generally good, and the quality for quantitative and mixed studies was assessed as fair. We identified 52 facilitators and 50 barriers in the included literature, covering the domains used in the CFIR framework and 39 constructs, mainly including "Innovation Evidence-Base", "Innovation Complexity", "Innovation Design", "Structural Characteristics", "Compatibility", "Incentive Systems", "Access to Knowledge & Information", "Innovation Deliverers", "Innovation Recipients", and "Planning".

Conclusions: This systematic review integrated facilitators and barriers affecting PRO implementation in routine oncology clinical practice settings and categorized them through the CFIR framework. These influencing factors should be fully considered in future clinical practice to ensure the successful implementation of PROs.

Trial registration: It has been registered prospectively in PROSPERO under the registration number 42024532983.

Background: As the field of implementation science continues to grow, its key concepts are being transferred into new contexts globally, such as Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs), and its use is constantly being reexamined and expanded. Theoretical and methodological positions commonly used in implementation research and practice have great utility in our work but in many cases are at odds with LMIC contexts. As a team of implementation scientists based in Zambia, we offer this commentary as a critical self-reflection on what has worked and what could limit us from fully utilizing the field's promise for addressing health problems with contextual understanding.

Main body: We used a 'premortem,' an approach used to generate potential alternatives from failed assumptions about a particular phenomenon, as a way to reflect on our experiences conducting implementation research and practice. By utilizing prospectively imagined hindsights, we were able to reflect on the past, present and possible future of the field in Zambia. Six key challenges identified were: (i) epistemic injustices; (ii) simplified conceptualizations of evidence-informed interventions; (iii) limited theorization of the complexity of low-resource contexts and it impacts on implementation; (iv) persistent lags in transforming research into practice; (v) limited focus on strategic dissemination of implementation science knowledge and (vi) existing training and capacity building initiatives' failure to engage a broad range of actors including practitioners through diverse learning models.

Conclusion: Implementation science offers great promise in addressing many health problems in Zambia. Through this commentary, we hope to spur discussions on how implementation scientists can reimagine the future of the field by contemplating on lessons from our experiences in LMIC settings.

Background: Champions are integral across research in cancer, yet studies exploring their roles are limited and have produced mixed results. The current review examines and synthesizes descriptions of how champions emerged and the types of activities they most often performed. By examining evidence from across the translational research continuum, this scoping review aims to characterize the role of champions and strategies that facilitate their involvement in the implementation of cancer care interventions in both clinical and community-based settings.

Methods: This scoping review was designed and implemented in compliance with PRISMA-ScR. The review focused on peer-reviewed articles in English-language journals. We searched five databases: PubMed (including MEDLINE), Scopus (including EMBASE), CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. Articles published from 1971 to 2022 were included. Two members of the team reviewed in duplicate each article and then a single member of the team extracted the data in Covidence, with a second member comparing the extraction to the original article. Qualitative and quantitative data were extracted and then synthesized. These data were used to summarize core champion activities and implementation strategies and to characterize barriers and facilitators to using champions in research.

Results: A total of 74 articles were included in the review. The qualitative synthesis highlighted facilitators and barriers to the effective use of champions. Facilitators included consideration of an individual's characteristics when identifying champions, time spent planning for the specific responsibilities of champions, working within a supportive environment, and identifying champions embedded in the target setting. Major barriers included constrained time, low self-efficacy among champions, inadequate training, high turnover rates of champions, and a lack of buy-in from organizational leadership toward the intervention. Champions also were mostly assigned their roles, had varied core activities, and used complementary strategies to empower their target populations. Champions' most frequent core activities include facilitation, outreach/promotion, and recruitment of participants into studies.

Conclusions: Champions were used in research of many cancer types and often serve similar roles regardless of where they are located within the translational research process. Despite their critical role, evidence is lacking on the impact of champions specifically on outcomes of many of the research studies that include them. Future research is needed to understand the nuances of champion-driven approaches across diverse cancer care settings.

Background: Despite the potential for community health worker (CHW)-led programs to improve the health of people with justice involvement (PWJI), little is known about the practical implementation of such models. We explored barriers and facilitators to implementation of a municipal CHW program, the Health Justice Network (NYC HJN), led by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) in partnership with three reentry-focused community-based organizations (CBOs) and three federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) that was designed to serve the health and social service needs of PWJI.

Methods: Eighteen in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of CHWs, partner site supervisors, and DOHMH staff. Interviews were conducted virtually and transcribed verbatim. Codes and themes were developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to understand facilitators and barriers to NYC HJN implementation.

Results: Important facilitators to implementation included: lived experience of CHWs, as well as NYC HJN's voluntary nature, lack of onerous eligibility criteria, and prioritization of participant needs. One barrier was the lack of a formal implementation protocol. Themes identified as facilitators in some instances and barriers in others were CHW integration into site partners, the expansive scope of work for CHWs, the integration of a trauma-informed approach, values alignment and existing infrastructure, leadership engagement, CHW training and support, and input, feedback, and communication.

Conclusions: Findings will help inform how to successfully implement future CHW-led interventions for PWJI with municipal, health, and social service partners.

Background: While previous studies have examined various platforms that enable providers to connect, Virtual Hallway (VH) stands out with its unique features. The value add is that this online platform connects primary care providers and specialists for synchronous phone-based conversations and aims to reduce referrals and enhance the quality of referrals. VH allows providers to easily log in, select the required specialty, book call times, receive reminders, and have calls documented, ensuring a high connection rate. In May 2022, the provincial health authority in Nova Scotia, a Canadian province, and VH initiated a feasibility study facilitated through the Health Innovation Hub in Nova Scotia. The goal was to enable primary care providers to connect with specialists, thereby reducing wait times and unnecessary referrals, and facilitating timely access to relevant clinical direction for patients. The current evaluation assessed utilization, value for money in economic analysis, and consultation experiences.

Methods: The study used post, cross-sectional, and cost-benefit study designs. We collected data through various methods, including administratively recorded utilization, theory-driven surveys, and cost data. Utilization was measured by the number of completed consults and the number of healthcare professionals using the VH platform. We analyzed the data using a combination of descriptive statistics and a cost-benefit analysis, which also involved conducting probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results: The study found that approximately 84% of the VH consultations avoided needing in-person specialist referrals. The return on investment was 1.8 (95% CI: 0.8 to 3.0), indicating that the monetary value of the measurable benefits associated with VH exceeded the value of the resources invested. The provider experience survey revealed high satisfaction levels with VH across user groups, with 92% of specialists and 96% of primary care providers reporting being satisfied or highly satisfied with their experience. These positive indicators of provider experience were further supported by the fact that 97% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they intended to continue to use VH in their practice, and 97% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they would recommend VH to a colleague.

Conclusions: The study suggests that VH was well-received by users, with high levels of satisfaction reported and a reduced need for in-person referrals. It also represented value for money. Further research could explore how the availability of virtual health services can lead to reduced utilization of healthcare resources among different groups of patients.

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.