Implementation science communications最新文献

Background: Adolescents and Young Adult (AYA) cancer survivors are at risk for psychological distress due to their unique developmental and medical needs. Healthcare providers can leverage the convenience and appeal of technology to provide supportive care for this vulnerable population. Using evidence-based mindfulness-based mobile interventions as a case example, the goal of this study was to identify key patient-, provider-, and organization-level barriers and facilitators to supportive care and implementing digital health interventions in AYA survivorship care.

Methods: Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders including AYA survivors (n = 10; between 18-29 years old) and clinical providers and administrators (n = 10). Interviews were transcribed and deductively mapped using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) complementary frameworks.

Results: Results indicated that factors like cost and patients' needs and resources were prevalent among both survivors and providers. There were key differences between providers and AYA survivors. Providers' adoption and promotion of digital health interventions were influenced most strongly by contextual factors, including available resources (Inner Setting), culture (Outer Setting), and networks and communications (Outer Setting). On the other hand, survivors emphasized individual and intervention-related factors; they reported that social influence and knowledge influenced their adoption and use of digital health interventions, including meditation apps.

Conclusions: These results identified barriers and facilitators to the adoption of supportive care digital health interventions from multiple stakeholders. Results can be used to guide the development of implementation strategies to improve the uptake of digital health interventions in survivorship care, ultimately improving the psychosocial well-being of AYA cancer survivors.

Background: German hospitals are legally obliged to implement digital patient portals within the next years. Systematic reviews show that the use of patient portals may be associated with improved patient-centeredness and workflows. However, mandatory digital healthcare innovations are sometimes not used by the target group as planned or even completely rejected. Based on Roger's theory of innovation diffusion, it can be assumed that the time factor is of particular importance for the adoption of the patient portal. The aim of the project is to assess determinants of patient portal adoption and to examine whether Roger's theory can be confirmed.

Methods: The project investigates the use of the patient portal in three different clinics of a large academic teaching hospital in Germany using a longitudinal study design with three cross-sectional time points (pre, post, post). Doctors and patients are surveyed about factors that predict the use of the patient portal and whether the strength of these factors changes over time. They are also interviewed about possible barriers they experience when using the patient portal or about the reasons why the patient portal is not used. Regression models and content analyses are used to answer the research questions.

Discussion: Determinants of patient portal use will be discussed under the light of the temporal component of Roger's theory. At the same time, it is expected that some determinants will remain unchanged over time. Identifying determinants independent of time allows targeting the groups, enabling specific communication strategies to empower these groups to use the patient portal, contributing to an equal health care system.

Trial registration: The study was prospectively registered in the German register of clinical trials (DRKS00033125) in May 2024.

Background: As role substitution models gain prominence in healthcare, understanding the factors shaping their effectiveness is paramount. This study aimed to investigate factors that impact the implementation and performance evaluation of professional role substitution models in healthcare, with a focus on understanding the variables that determine their success or failure in adoption, execution, continuity, and outcomes.

Methods: The exploratory qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with key opinion leaders, decision makers, facilitators, recipients, and frontline implementers, who had influence and involvement in the implementation of professional role substitution models. Data analysis was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Results: Between November 2022 and April 2023, 39 stakeholders were interviewed. Factors influencing implementation and evaluation of allied health professional role substitution models of care aligned with the five core CFIR domains (innovation, outer setting, inner setting, individuals, implementation process) and outcome domain incorporating implementation and innovation outcomes. The six themes identified within these CFIR domains were, respectively; i) Examining the dynamics of innovation catalysts, evidence, advantages, and disadvantages; ii) Navigating the complex landscape of external factors that influence implementation and evaluation; iii) Impact of internal structural, political, and cultural contexts; iv) The roles and contributions of individuals in the process; v) Essential phases and strategies for effective implementation; and vi) The assessment of outcomes derived from allied health professional role substitution models.

Conclusions: The study highlights the complex interplay of contextual and individual factors that influence the implementation and performance evaluation of professional role substitution models. It emphasises the need for collaboration among diverse stakeholders to navigate the challenges and leverage the opportunities presented by expanded healthcare roles. Understanding these multifaceted factors can contribute to the development of an empowered workforce and a healthcare system that is more efficient, effective, safe, and sustainable, ultimately benefiting patients.

Background: Although eMental health interventions are a viable solution to address disparities in access to mental healthcare and increase its efficiency, they still face challenges of implementation. Literature highlights numerous barriers such as diffusion of responsibility and unclear expectations of what implementation entails might hinder this process. While research mostly focuses on analyzing these barriers, there is an urgent need to increase uptake in practice. In turn, commercial companies focus mostly on increasing uptake, while overlooking research outputs. To bridge the gap between research and practice, attention to how implementation occurs in practice is required. This study investigates "Make it Happen" (MiH), the implementation model developed by the eMental Health company Minddistrict, aiming to gain more insight into operationalizing implementation frameworks by 1) describing MiH and its conceptual underpinnings, and 2) gaining lessons learned from the development of MiH. Ultimately, this work aims at improving existing scientific frameworks by extending them with knowledge from practice.

Methods: First, individual interviews and focus groups with Minddistrict implementation managers were performed. Second, individual interviews with project leads in mental healthcare organizations that were involved in the implementation of Minddistrict were conducted. Within Minddistrict, 7 implementation managers and account managers were involved, in addition to 11 project leads from mental healthcare organizations. Data were elaborated with thematic analysis.

Results: A comprehensive description of MiH and its 5 main phases was achieved. During the 1) Onboarding phase, implementing organizations are guided by Minddistrict to build a team responsible for implementation, which then 2) designs patient and client journeys, 3) builds, tailors and configures their offer, 4) trains key-users and, 5) evaluates the success of implementation. All participants had extensive and aligned definitions and articulated expectations on implementation. Points of improvement for the model such as role ambiguity and excessive workload were identified. As strengths, internal motivation and good relationships with the provider were valued.

Conclusion: The present study highlights the importance of clear role division and stakeholder engagement in implementation processes, and suggest that a strong collaboration between companies and academia could optimize implementation efforts and ensure a better fit between humans, context, and technologies.

Background: Multiple evidence-based strategies (EBS) for promoting HPV vaccination exist. However, adolescent HPV vaccination rates remain below target levels in communities at high risk for HPV-associated cancers and served by safety-net clinics. Participatory engaged approaches are needed to leverage the expertise of community and clinical partners in selecting EBS relevant to their local context. We engaged concept mapping as a method to inform the adoption and adaptation of EBS that seeks to empower implementation partners to prioritize, select, and ultimately implement context-relevant EBS for HPV vaccination.

Methods: Using 38 EBS statements generated from qualitative interviews and national HPV vaccine advocacy sources, we conducted a modified concept mapping activity with partners internal to safety-net clinics and external community members in two study sites of a larger implementation study (Greater Los Angeles and New Jersey), to sort EBS into clusters and rate each EBS by importance and feasibility for increasing HPV vaccination within safety-net clinics. Concept mapping findings (EBS statement ratings, ladder graphs and go-zones) were shared with leaders from a large federally qualified health center (FQHC) system (focusing on three clinic sites), to select and implement EBS over 12 months.

Results: Concept mapping participants (n=23) sorted and rated statements, resulting in an eight-cluster solution: 1) Community education and outreach; 2) Advocacy and policy; 3) Data access/quality improvement monitoring; 4) Provider tracking/audit and feedback; 5) Provider recommendation/communication; 6) Expanding vaccine access; 7) Reducing missed opportunities; and 8) Nurse/staff workflow and training. The FQHC partner then selected to intervene on eight of 17 EBS statements in the "go-zone" for action, with three from "reducing missed opportunities," two from "nurse/staff workflow and training," and one each from "provider tracking/audit and feedback," "provider recommendation/communication," and "expanding vaccine access," which the research team addressed through the implementation of three multi-level intervention strategies (e.g., physician communication training, staff training and workflow assessment, audit and feedback of clinic processes).

Conclusions: Concept mapping provided a powerful participatory approach to identify multilevel EBS for HPV vaccination relevant to the local safety-net clinic context, particularly when several strategies exist, and prioritization is necessary. This study demonstrates how a clinic system benefited directly from the ratings and prioritization of EBS by multilevel clinic and community partners within the broader safety-net clinic context to identify and adapt prioritized solutions needed to advance HPV vaccine equity.

Background: Implementation research generally assumes established evidence-based practices and prior piloting of implementation strategies, which may not be feasible during a public health emergency. We describe the use of a simulation model of the effectiveness of COVID-19 mitigation strategies to inform a stakeholder-engaged process of rapidly designing a tailored intervention and implementation strategy for individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) and intellectual/developmental disabilities (ID/DD) in group homes in a hybrid effectiveness-implementation randomized trial.

Methods: We used a validated dynamic microsimulation model of COVID-19 transmission and disease in late 2020/early 2021 to determine the most effective strategies to mitigate infections among Massachusetts group home staff and residents. Model inputs were informed by data from stakeholders, public records, and published literature. We assessed different prevention strategies, iterated over time with input from multidisciplinary stakeholders and pandemic evolution, including varying symptom screening, testing frequency, isolation, contact-time, use of personal protective equipment, and vaccination. Model outcomes included new infections in group home residents, new infections in group home staff, and resident hospital days. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for parameter uncertainty. Results of the simulations informed a stakeholder-engaged process to select components of a tailored best practice intervention and implementation strategy.

Results: The largest projected decrease in infections was with initial vaccination, with minimal benefit for additional routine testing. The initial level of actual vaccination in the group homes was estimated to reduce resident infections by 72.4% and staff infections by 55.9% over the 90-day time horizon. Increasing resident and staff vaccination uptake to a target goal of 90% further decreased resident infections by 45.2% and staff infections by 51.3%. Subsequent simulated removal of masking led to a 6.5% increase in infections among residents and 3.2% among staff. The simulation model results were presented to multidisciplinary stakeholders and policymakers to inform the "Tailored Best Practice" package for the hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial.

Conclusions: Vaccination and decreasing vaccine hesitancy among staff were predicted to have the greatest impact in mitigating COVID-19 risk in vulnerable populations of group home residents and staff. Simulation modeling was effective in rapidly informing the selection of the prevention and implementation strategy in a hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. Future implementation may benefit from this approach when rapid deployment is necessary in the absence of data on tailored interventions.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04726371.

Background: Qualitative methods are a critical tool for enhancing implementation planning and tailoring, yet rapid turn-around of qualitative insights can be challenging in large implementation trials. The Department of Veterans Affairs-funded EMPOWER 2.0 Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) is conducting a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation trial comparing the impact of Replicating Effective Programs (REP) and Evidence-Based Quality Improvement (EBQI) as strategies for implementing three evidence-based practices (EBPs) for women Veterans. We describe the development of the Rapid Implementation Feedback (RIF) report, a pragmatic, team-based approach for the rapid synthesis of qualitative data to aid implementation planning and tailoring, as well as findings from a process evaluation of adopting the RIF report within the EMPOWER 2.0 QUERI.

Methods: Trained qualitative staff conducted 125 semi-structured pre-implementation interviews with frontline staff, providers, and leadership across 16 VA sites between October 2021 and October 2022. High-priority topic domains informed by the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research were selected in dialogue between EMPOWER 2.0 implementation and evaluation teams, and relevant key points were summarized for each interview to produce a structured RIF report, with emergent findings about each site highlighted in weekly written and verbal communications. Process evaluation was conducted to assess EMPOWER 2.0 team experiences with the RIF report across pre-implementation data collection and synthesis and implementation planning and tailoring.

Results: Weekly RIF updates supported continuous EMPOWER 2.0 team communication around key findings, particularly questions and concerns raised by participating sites related to the three EBPs. Introducing the RIF report into team processes enhanced: team communication; quality and rigor of qualitative data; sensemaking around emergent challenges; understanding of site readiness; and tailoring of REP and EBQI implementation strategies. RIF report findings have facilitated rapid tailoring of implementation planning and rollout, supporting increased responsiveness to sites' needs and concerns.

Conclusions: The RIF report provides a structured strategy for distillation of time-sensitive findings, continuous team communication amid a complex multi-site implementation effort, and effective tailoring of implementation rollout in real-time. Use of the RIF report may also support trust-building by enhancing responsiveness to sites during pre- and early implementation.

Trial registration: Enhancing Mental and Physical Health of Women Veterans (NCT05050266); https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05050266?term=EMPOWER%202.0&rank=1 Date of registration: 09/09/2021.

Background: Botswana serves as a model of success for HIV with 95% of people living with HIV (PLWH) virally suppressed. Yet, only 19% of PLWH and hypertension have controlled blood pressure. To address this gap, InterCARE, a care model that integrates HIV and hypertension care through a) provider training; b) adapted electronic health record; and c) treatment partners (peer support), was designed. This study presents results from our baseline assessment of the determinants and factors used to guide adaptations to InterCARE implementation strategies prior to a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation study.

Methods: This study employed a convergent mixed methods design across two clinics (one rural, one urban) to collect quantitative and qualitative data through facility assessments, 100 stakeholder surveys (20 each PLWH and hypertension, existing HIV treatment partners, clinical healthcare providers (HCPs), and 40 community leaders) and ten stakeholder key informative interviews (KIIs). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and deductive qualitative analysis organized by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and compared to identify areas of convergence and divergence.

Results: Although 90.3% of 290 PLWH and hypertension at the clinics were taking antihypertensive medications, 52.8% had uncontrolled blood pressure. Results from facility assessments, surveys, and KIIs identified key determinants in the CFIR innovation and inner setting domains. Most stakeholders (> 85%) agreed that InterCARE was adaptable, compatible and would be successful at improving blood pressure control in PLWH and hypertension. HCPs agreed that there were insufficient resources (40%), consistent with facility assessments and KIIs which identified limited staffing, inconsistent electricity, and a lack of supplies as key barriers. Adaptations to InterCARE included a task-sharing strategy and expanded treatment partner training and support.

Conclusions: Integrating hypertension services into HIV clinics was perceived as more advantageous for PLWH than the current model of hypertension care delivered outside of HIV clinics. Identified barriers were used to adapt InterCARE implementation strategies for more effective intervention delivery.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05414526 . Registered 18 May 2022 - Retrospectively registered.

Introduction: Behavior change techniques (BCTs) are considered as active components of implementation strategies, influencing determinants and, ultimately, implementation performance. In our previous Delphi study, experts formulated 'implementation hypotheses', detailing how specific combinations of BCTs and strategies (referred to as BCT-strategy combinations) might influence determinants and guideline implementation within youth care. For example, educational meetings providing instructions on guideline use were hypothesized to enhance practitioners' knowledge and, consequently, guideline implementation. However, these hypotheses have not been verified in practice yet.

Method: We conducted a cross-sectional study involving practitioners and management professionals from youth (health)care organizations. Using questionnaires, we obtained data on the presence of BCT-strategy combinations and their perceived influence on determinants and implementation performance. Chi-squared tests and regression analyses were employed to determine the influence of specific BCT-strategy combinations on determinants and implementation performance.

Results: Our analyses included data from 104 practitioners and 34 management professionals. Most of the management professionals indicated that the BCT-strategy combinations positively influenced or had the potential to influence their implementation performance. At the practitioner level, half of the combinations were perceived to have a positive influence on determinants and implementation performance. Furthermore, practitioners who reported the absence of BCT-strategy combinations were more skeptical about their potential influence on determinants and implementation performance.

Conclusion: Several BCT-strategy combinations were perceived to improve or potentially improve implementation performance of both practitioners and management professionals. In the development and evaluation of implementation efforts, we advocate for clearly describing the implementation effort's objective and using frameworks that detail the BCTs inducing behavior change, the strategy employed, and the processes driving the observed changes. Understanding these interconnected processes is important in designing targeted, evidence-based behavior change interventions. This understanding optimizes resource allocation and contributes to the overall success of implementation efforts in youth care.