Pub Date : 2024-06-18DOI: 10.1186/s43058-024-00602-y
Alicia Hilderley, Christine Cassidy, Sandra Reist-Asencio, Chelsea Tao, Stephen Tao, Susan McCoy, Divya Vurrabindi, Kathleen O'Grady, Mia Herrero, Liz Cambridge, Eleanor Leverington, Victoria Micek, John Andersen, Darcy Fehlings, Adam Kirton
Background: Intensive manual therapy is important for improving lifelong upper limb motor outcomes for infants and toddlers with cerebral palsy. This play-based therapy is delivered by caregivers who are coached by occupational therapists. However, access to this therapy is very limited for Canadian children with cerebral palsy younger than two years old. This project aims to first identify barriers and facilitators and then design implementation strategies to support early intensive manual therapy delivery for infants and toddlers with cerebral palsy across Canada.
Methods: A mixed-methods sequential explanatory design will be used with four consecutive phases. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will guide the study. Quantitative data will be collected from a survey in Phase One. Participants will be recruited from three groups: (1) Caregivers of children with cerebral palsy six years old and younger who are eligible for manual therapy; (2) occupational therapists who treat children with cerebral palsy; and (3) healthcare administrators or people responsible for managing pediatric occupational therapy programs. In Phase Two, quantitative data from the survey will be used to map to implementation strategies known to be effective at addressing the identified modifiable barriers and facilitators. Phase Three will collect qualitative data from semi-structured interviews for the purpose of explaining Phase One quantitative findings in greater depth, and for understanding the appropriateness of strategies identified in Phase Two. The participant recruitment strategy and interview guide content for Phase Three will be informed by results of Phase One. Phase Four will use a modified nominal group technique to refine and prioritize an implementation strategy toolbox. Results will be widely disseminated to knowledge users to provide them with tailorable strategies to increase delivery of early intensive manual interventions.
Discussion: This study will provide a comprehensive understanding of the barriers and facilitators to implementation of early intensive manual therapy for young children with cerebral palsy in Canada. A toolbox of evidence-based and tailorable implementation strategies will be disseminated nationally to support uptake of early intensive manual therapy into clinical practice for young children with cerebral palsy.
{"title":"Designing strategies to support Implementation of iNtensive Therapy for Early Reach through PLAY (INTERPLAY) for young children with cerebral palsy: a study protocol.","authors":"Alicia Hilderley, Christine Cassidy, Sandra Reist-Asencio, Chelsea Tao, Stephen Tao, Susan McCoy, Divya Vurrabindi, Kathleen O'Grady, Mia Herrero, Liz Cambridge, Eleanor Leverington, Victoria Micek, John Andersen, Darcy Fehlings, Adam Kirton","doi":"10.1186/s43058-024-00602-y","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-024-00602-y","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Intensive manual therapy is important for improving lifelong upper limb motor outcomes for infants and toddlers with cerebral palsy. This play-based therapy is delivered by caregivers who are coached by occupational therapists. However, access to this therapy is very limited for Canadian children with cerebral palsy younger than two years old. This project aims to first identify barriers and facilitators and then design implementation strategies to support early intensive manual therapy delivery for infants and toddlers with cerebral palsy across Canada.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods sequential explanatory design will be used with four consecutive phases. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will guide the study. Quantitative data will be collected from a survey in Phase One. Participants will be recruited from three groups: (1) Caregivers of children with cerebral palsy six years old and younger who are eligible for manual therapy; (2) occupational therapists who treat children with cerebral palsy; and (3) healthcare administrators or people responsible for managing pediatric occupational therapy programs. In Phase Two, quantitative data from the survey will be used to map to implementation strategies known to be effective at addressing the identified modifiable barriers and facilitators. Phase Three will collect qualitative data from semi-structured interviews for the purpose of explaining Phase One quantitative findings in greater depth, and for understanding the appropriateness of strategies identified in Phase Two. The participant recruitment strategy and interview guide content for Phase Three will be informed by results of Phase One. Phase Four will use a modified nominal group technique to refine and prioritize an implementation strategy toolbox. Results will be widely disseminated to knowledge users to provide them with tailorable strategies to increase delivery of early intensive manual interventions.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This study will provide a comprehensive understanding of the barriers and facilitators to implementation of early intensive manual therapy for young children with cerebral palsy in Canada. A toolbox of evidence-based and tailorable implementation strategies will be disseminated nationally to support uptake of early intensive manual therapy into clinical practice for young children with cerebral palsy.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"5 1","pages":"66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11184861/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141422088","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-06-17DOI: 10.1186/s43058-024-00592-x
Stephanie K Brewer, Catherine M Corbin, Ana A Baumann, Shannon Wiltsey Stirman, Janine M Jones, Michael D Pullmann, Aaron R Lyon
Background: Intervention adaptation is often necessary to improve the fit between evidence-based practices/programs and implementation contexts. Existing frameworks describe intervention adaptation processes but do not provide detailed steps for prospectively designing adaptations, are designed for researchers, and require substantial time and resources to complete. A pragmatic approach to guide implementers through developing and assessing adaptations in local contexts is needed. The goal of this project was to develop Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI), a method for intervention adaptation that leverages human centered design methods and is tailored to the needs of intervention implementers working in applied settings with limited time and resources.
Method: MODIFI was iteratively developed via a mixed-methods modified Delphi process. Feedback was collected from 43 implementation research and practice experts. Two rounds of data collection gathered quantitative ratings of acceptability and inclusion (Round 1) and feasibility (Round 2), as well as qualitative feedback regarding MODIFI revisions analyzed using conventional content analysis.
Results: In Round 1, most participants rated all proposed components as essential but identified important avenues for revision which were incorporated into MODIFI prior to Round 2. Round 2 emphasized feasibility, where ratings were generally high and fewer substantive revisions were recommended. Round 2 changes largely surrounded operationalization of terms/processes and sequencing of content. Results include a detailed presentation of the final version of the three-step MODIFI method (Step 1: Learn about the users, local context, and intervention; Step 2: Adapt the intervention; Step 3: Evaluate the adaptation) along with a case example of its application.
Discussion: MODIFI is a pragmatic method that was developed to extend the contributions of other research-based adaptation theories, models, and frameworks while integrating methods that are tailored to the needs of intervention implementers. Guiding teams to tailor evidence-based interventions to their local context may extend for whom, where, and under what conditions an intervention can be effective.
{"title":"Development of a method for Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI): a modified Delphi study.","authors":"Stephanie K Brewer, Catherine M Corbin, Ana A Baumann, Shannon Wiltsey Stirman, Janine M Jones, Michael D Pullmann, Aaron R Lyon","doi":"10.1186/s43058-024-00592-x","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-024-00592-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Intervention adaptation is often necessary to improve the fit between evidence-based practices/programs and implementation contexts. Existing frameworks describe intervention adaptation processes but do not provide detailed steps for prospectively designing adaptations, are designed for researchers, and require substantial time and resources to complete. A pragmatic approach to guide implementers through developing and assessing adaptations in local contexts is needed. The goal of this project was to develop Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI), a method for intervention adaptation that leverages human centered design methods and is tailored to the needs of intervention implementers working in applied settings with limited time and resources.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>MODIFI was iteratively developed via a mixed-methods modified Delphi process. Feedback was collected from 43 implementation research and practice experts. Two rounds of data collection gathered quantitative ratings of acceptability and inclusion (Round 1) and feasibility (Round 2), as well as qualitative feedback regarding MODIFI revisions analyzed using conventional content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In Round 1, most participants rated all proposed components as essential but identified important avenues for revision which were incorporated into MODIFI prior to Round 2. Round 2 emphasized feasibility, where ratings were generally high and fewer substantive revisions were recommended. Round 2 changes largely surrounded operationalization of terms/processes and sequencing of content. Results include a detailed presentation of the final version of the three-step MODIFI method (Step 1: Learn about the users, local context, and intervention; Step 2: Adapt the intervention; Step 3: Evaluate the adaptation) along with a case example of its application.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>MODIFI is a pragmatic method that was developed to extend the contributions of other research-based adaptation theories, models, and frameworks while integrating methods that are tailored to the needs of intervention implementers. Guiding teams to tailor evidence-based interventions to their local context may extend for whom, where, and under what conditions an intervention can be effective.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"5 1","pages":"64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11181660/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141422089","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-06-17DOI: 10.1186/s43058-024-00606-8
Jennifer Leeman, Catherine Rohweder, Jennifer Elston Lafata, Mary Wangen, Renee Ferrari, Christopher M Shea, Alison Brenner, Isabel Roth, Oscar Fleming, Mark Toles
Background: Implementation science emerged from the recognized need to speed the translation of effective interventions into practice. In the US, the science has evolved to place an ever-increasing focus on implementation strategies. The long list of implementation strategies, terminology used to name strategies, and time required to tailor strategies all may contribute to delays in translating evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into practice. To speed EBI translation, we propose a streamlined approach to classifying and tailoring implementation strategies.
Main text: A multidisciplinary team of eight scholars conducted an exercise to sort the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies into three classes: implementation processes (n = 25), capacity-building strategies (n = 20), and integration strategies (n = 28). Implementation processes comprise best practices that apply across EBIs and throughout the phases of implementation from exploration through sustainment (e.g., conduct local needs assessment). Capacity-building strategies target either general or EBI-specific knowledge and skills (e.g., conduct educational meetings). Integration strategies include "methods and techniques" that target barriers or facilitators to implementation of a specific EBI beyond those targeted by capacity building. Building on these three classes, the team collaboratively developed recommendations for a pragmatic, five-step approach that begins with the implementation processes and capacity-building strategies practice-settings are already using prior to tailoring integration strategies. A case study is provided to illustrate use of the five-step approach to tailor the strategies needed to implement a transitional care intervention in skilled nursing facilities.
Conclusions: Our proposed approach streamlines the formative work required prior to implementing an EBI by building on practice partner preferences, expertise, and infrastructure while also making the most of prior research findings.
{"title":"A streamlined approach to classifying and tailoring implementation strategies: recommendations to speed the translation of research to practice.","authors":"Jennifer Leeman, Catherine Rohweder, Jennifer Elston Lafata, Mary Wangen, Renee Ferrari, Christopher M Shea, Alison Brenner, Isabel Roth, Oscar Fleming, Mark Toles","doi":"10.1186/s43058-024-00606-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00606-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Implementation science emerged from the recognized need to speed the translation of effective interventions into practice. In the US, the science has evolved to place an ever-increasing focus on implementation strategies. The long list of implementation strategies, terminology used to name strategies, and time required to tailor strategies all may contribute to delays in translating evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into practice. To speed EBI translation, we propose a streamlined approach to classifying and tailoring implementation strategies.</p><p><strong>Main text: </strong>A multidisciplinary team of eight scholars conducted an exercise to sort the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies into three classes: implementation processes (n = 25), capacity-building strategies (n = 20), and integration strategies (n = 28). Implementation processes comprise best practices that apply across EBIs and throughout the phases of implementation from exploration through sustainment (e.g., conduct local needs assessment). Capacity-building strategies target either general or EBI-specific knowledge and skills (e.g., conduct educational meetings). Integration strategies include \"methods and techniques\" that target barriers or facilitators to implementation of a specific EBI beyond those targeted by capacity building. Building on these three classes, the team collaboratively developed recommendations for a pragmatic, five-step approach that begins with the implementation processes and capacity-building strategies practice-settings are already using prior to tailoring integration strategies. A case study is provided to illustrate use of the five-step approach to tailor the strategies needed to implement a transitional care intervention in skilled nursing facilities.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our proposed approach streamlines the formative work required prior to implementing an EBI by building on practice partner preferences, expertise, and infrastructure while also making the most of prior research findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"5 1","pages":"65"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11181609/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141422087","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-06-07DOI: 10.1186/s43058-024-00600-0
Yinfei Duan, Jing Wang, Holly J Lanham, Whitney Berta, Stephanie A Chamberlain, Matthias Hoben, Katharina Choroschun, Alba Iaconi, Yuting Song, Janelle Santos Perez, Shovana Shrestha, Anna Beeber, Ruth A Anderson, Leslie Hayduk, Greta G Cummings, Peter G Norton, Carole A Estabrooks
Background: Context (work environment) plays a crucial role in implementing evidence-based best practices within health care settings. Context is multi-faceted and its complex relationship with best practice use by care aides in long-term care (LTC) homes are understudied. This study used an innovative approach to investigate how context elements interrelate and influence best practice use by LTC care aides.
Methods: In this secondary analysis study, we combined coincidence analysis (a configurational comparative method) and qualitative analysis to examine data collected through the Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program. Coincidence analysis of clinical microsystem (care unit)-level data aggregated from a survey of 1,506 care aides across 36 Canadian LTC homes identified configurations (paths) of context elements linked consistently to care aides' best practices use, measured with a scale of conceptual research use (CRU). Qualitative analysis of ethnographic case study data from 3 LTC homes (co-occurring with the survey) further informed interpretation of the configurations.
Results: Three paths led to very high CRU at the care unit level: very high leadership; frequent use of educational materials; or a combination of very high social capital (teamwork) and frequent communication between care aides and clinical educators or specialists. Conversely, 2 paths led to very low CRU, consisting of 3 context elements related to unfavorable conditions in relationships, resources, and formal learning opportunities. Our qualitative analysis provided insights into how specific context elements served as facilitators or barriers for best practices. This qualitative exploration was especially helpful in understanding 2 of the paths, illustrating the pivotal role of leadership and the function of teamwork in mitigating the negative impact of time constraints.
Conclusions: Our study deepens understanding of the complex interrelationships between context elements and their impact on the implementation of best practices in LTC homes. The findings underscore that there is no singular, universal bundle of context-related elements that enhance or hinder best practice use in LTC homes.
{"title":"How context links to best practice use in long-term care homes: a mixed methods study.","authors":"Yinfei Duan, Jing Wang, Holly J Lanham, Whitney Berta, Stephanie A Chamberlain, Matthias Hoben, Katharina Choroschun, Alba Iaconi, Yuting Song, Janelle Santos Perez, Shovana Shrestha, Anna Beeber, Ruth A Anderson, Leslie Hayduk, Greta G Cummings, Peter G Norton, Carole A Estabrooks","doi":"10.1186/s43058-024-00600-0","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-024-00600-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Context (work environment) plays a crucial role in implementing evidence-based best practices within health care settings. Context is multi-faceted and its complex relationship with best practice use by care aides in long-term care (LTC) homes are understudied. This study used an innovative approach to investigate how context elements interrelate and influence best practice use by LTC care aides.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this secondary analysis study, we combined coincidence analysis (a configurational comparative method) and qualitative analysis to examine data collected through the Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program. Coincidence analysis of clinical microsystem (care unit)-level data aggregated from a survey of 1,506 care aides across 36 Canadian LTC homes identified configurations (paths) of context elements linked consistently to care aides' best practices use, measured with a scale of conceptual research use (CRU). Qualitative analysis of ethnographic case study data from 3 LTC homes (co-occurring with the survey) further informed interpretation of the configurations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three paths led to very high CRU at the care unit level: very high leadership; frequent use of educational materials; or a combination of very high social capital (teamwork) and frequent communication between care aides and clinical educators or specialists. Conversely, 2 paths led to very low CRU, consisting of 3 context elements related to unfavorable conditions in relationships, resources, and formal learning opportunities. Our qualitative analysis provided insights into how specific context elements served as facilitators or barriers for best practices. This qualitative exploration was especially helpful in understanding 2 of the paths, illustrating the pivotal role of leadership and the function of teamwork in mitigating the negative impact of time constraints.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study deepens understanding of the complex interrelationships between context elements and their impact on the implementation of best practices in LTC homes. The findings underscore that there is no singular, universal bundle of context-related elements that enhance or hinder best practice use in LTC homes.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"5 1","pages":"63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11157780/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141289018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-06-06DOI: 10.1186/s43058-024-00599-4
Emmanuel K Tetteh, William Effah, Lisa de las Fuentes, Karen Steger-May, Charles W Goss, David W Dowdy, Mark D Huffman, Makeda J Williams, Veronica Tonwe, Geetha P Bansal, Elvin H Geng, Victor G Dávila-Román, Treva Rice, Kenneth B Schechtman
As global adoption of antiretroviral therapy extends the lifespan of People Living with HIV (PLHIV) through viral suppression, the risk of comorbid conditions such as hypertension has risen, creating a need for effective, scalable interventions to manage comorbidities in PLHIV. The Heart, Lung, and Blood Co-morbiditieS Implementation Models in People Living with HIV (HLB-SIMPLe) Alliance has been funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and the Fogarty International Center (FIC) since September 2020. The Alliance was created to conduct late-stage implementation research to contextualize, implement, and evaluate evidence-based strategies to integrate the diagnosis, treatment, and control of cardiovascular diseases, particularly hypertension, in PLHIV in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).The Alliance consists of six individually-funded clinical trial cooperative agreement research projects based in Botswana, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda, and Zambia; the Research Coordinating Center; and personnel from NIH, NHLBI, and FIC (the Federal Team). The Federal Team works together with the members of the seven cooperative agreements which comprise the alliance. The Federal Team includes program officials, project scientists, grant management officials and clinical trial specialists. This Alliance of research scientists, trainees, and administrators works collaboratively to provide and support venues for ongoing information sharing within and across the clinical trials, training and capacity building in research methods, publications, data harmonization, and community engagement. The goal is to leverage shared learning to achieve collective success, where the resulting science and training are greater with an Alliance structure rather than what would be expected from isolated and unconnected individual research projects.In this manuscript, we describe how the Research Coordinating Center performs the role of providing organizational efficiencies, scientific technical assistance, research capacity building, operational coordination, and leadership to support research and training activities in this multi-project cooperative research Alliance. We outline challenges and opportunities during the initial phases of coordinating research and training in the HLB-SIMPLe Alliance, including those most relevant to dissemination and implementation researchers.
{"title":"Dissemination and implementation research coordination and training to improve cardiovascular health in people living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: the research coordinating center of the HLB-SIMPLe Alliance.","authors":"Emmanuel K Tetteh, William Effah, Lisa de las Fuentes, Karen Steger-May, Charles W Goss, David W Dowdy, Mark D Huffman, Makeda J Williams, Veronica Tonwe, Geetha P Bansal, Elvin H Geng, Victor G Dávila-Román, Treva Rice, Kenneth B Schechtman","doi":"10.1186/s43058-024-00599-4","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-024-00599-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As global adoption of antiretroviral therapy extends the lifespan of People Living with HIV (PLHIV) through viral suppression, the risk of comorbid conditions such as hypertension has risen, creating a need for effective, scalable interventions to manage comorbidities in PLHIV. The Heart, Lung, and Blood Co-morbiditieS Implementation Models in People Living with HIV (HLB-SIMPLe) Alliance has been funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and the Fogarty International Center (FIC) since September 2020. The Alliance was created to conduct late-stage implementation research to contextualize, implement, and evaluate evidence-based strategies to integrate the diagnosis, treatment, and control of cardiovascular diseases, particularly hypertension, in PLHIV in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).The Alliance consists of six individually-funded clinical trial cooperative agreement research projects based in Botswana, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda, and Zambia; the Research Coordinating Center; and personnel from NIH, NHLBI, and FIC (the Federal Team). The Federal Team works together with the members of the seven cooperative agreements which comprise the alliance. The Federal Team includes program officials, project scientists, grant management officials and clinical trial specialists. This Alliance of research scientists, trainees, and administrators works collaboratively to provide and support venues for ongoing information sharing within and across the clinical trials, training and capacity building in research methods, publications, data harmonization, and community engagement. The goal is to leverage shared learning to achieve collective success, where the resulting science and training are greater with an Alliance structure rather than what would be expected from isolated and unconnected individual research projects.In this manuscript, we describe how the Research Coordinating Center performs the role of providing organizational efficiencies, scientific technical assistance, research capacity building, operational coordination, and leadership to support research and training activities in this multi-project cooperative research Alliance. We outline challenges and opportunities during the initial phases of coordinating research and training in the HLB-SIMPLe Alliance, including those most relevant to dissemination and implementation researchers.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"5 1","pages":"62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11155162/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141285486","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-06-06DOI: 10.1186/s43058-024-00601-z
Michael E Herce, Samuel Bosomprah, Felix Masiye, Oliver Mweemba, Jessie K Edwards, Chomba Mandyata, Mmamulatelo Siame, Chilambwe Mwila, Tulani Matenga, Christiana Frimpong, Anchindika Mugala, Peter Mbewe, Perfect Shankalala, Pendasambo Sichone, Blessings Kasenge, Luanaledi Chunga, Rupert Adams, Brian Banda, Daniel Mwamba, Namwinga Nachalwe, Mansi Agarwal, Makeda J Williams, Veronica Tonwe, Jake M Pry, Maurice Musheke, Michael Vinikoor, Wilbroad Mutale
Background: Despite increasing morbidity and mortality from non-communicable diseases (NCD) globally, health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have limited capacity to address these chronic conditions, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). There is an urgent need, therefore, to respond to NCDs in SSA, beginning by applying lessons learned from the first global response to any chronic disease-HIV-to tackle the leading cardiometabolic killers of people living with HIV (PLHIV). We have developed a feasible and acceptable package of evidence-based interventions and a multi-faceted implementation strategy, known as "TASKPEN," that has been adapted to the Zambian setting to address hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia. The TASKPEN multifaceted implementation strategy focuses on reorganizing service delivery for integrated HIV-NCD care and features task-shifting, practice facilitation, and leveraging HIV platforms for NCD care. We propose a hybrid type II effectiveness-implementation stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial to evaluate the effects of TASKPEN on clinical and implementation outcomes, including dual control of HIV and cardiometabolic NCDs, as well as quality of life, intervention reach, and cost-effectiveness.
Methods: The trial will be conducted in 12 urban health facilities in Lusaka, Zambia over a 30-month period. Clinical outcomes will be assessed via surveys with PLHIV accessing routine HIV services, and a prospective cohort of PLHIV with cardiometabolic comorbidities nested within the larger trial. We will also collect data using mixed methods, including in-depth interviews, questionnaires, focus group discussions, and structured observations, and estimate cost-effectiveness through time-and-motion studies and other costing methods, to understand implementation outcomes according to Proctor's Outcomes for Implementation Research, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and selected dimensions of RE-AIM.
Discussion: Findings from this study will be used to make discrete, actionable, and context-specific recommendations in Zambia and the region for integrating cardiometabolic NCD care into national HIV treatment programs. While the TASKPEN study focuses on cardiometabolic NCDs in PLHIV, the multifaceted implementation strategy studied will be relevant to other NCDs and to people without HIV. It is expected that the trial will generate new insights that enable delivery of high-quality integrated HIV-NCD care, which may improve cardiovascular morbidity and viral suppression for PLHIV in SSA. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05950919).
{"title":"Evaluating a multifaceted implementation strategy and package of evidence-based interventions based on WHO PEN for people living with HIV and cardiometabolic conditions in Lusaka, Zambia: protocol for the TASKPEN hybrid effectiveness-implementation stepped wedge cluster randomized trial.","authors":"Michael E Herce, Samuel Bosomprah, Felix Masiye, Oliver Mweemba, Jessie K Edwards, Chomba Mandyata, Mmamulatelo Siame, Chilambwe Mwila, Tulani Matenga, Christiana Frimpong, Anchindika Mugala, Peter Mbewe, Perfect Shankalala, Pendasambo Sichone, Blessings Kasenge, Luanaledi Chunga, Rupert Adams, Brian Banda, Daniel Mwamba, Namwinga Nachalwe, Mansi Agarwal, Makeda J Williams, Veronica Tonwe, Jake M Pry, Maurice Musheke, Michael Vinikoor, Wilbroad Mutale","doi":"10.1186/s43058-024-00601-z","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-024-00601-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite increasing morbidity and mortality from non-communicable diseases (NCD) globally, health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have limited capacity to address these chronic conditions, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). There is an urgent need, therefore, to respond to NCDs in SSA, beginning by applying lessons learned from the first global response to any chronic disease-HIV-to tackle the leading cardiometabolic killers of people living with HIV (PLHIV). We have developed a feasible and acceptable package of evidence-based interventions and a multi-faceted implementation strategy, known as \"TASKPEN,\" that has been adapted to the Zambian setting to address hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia. The TASKPEN multifaceted implementation strategy focuses on reorganizing service delivery for integrated HIV-NCD care and features task-shifting, practice facilitation, and leveraging HIV platforms for NCD care. We propose a hybrid type II effectiveness-implementation stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial to evaluate the effects of TASKPEN on clinical and implementation outcomes, including dual control of HIV and cardiometabolic NCDs, as well as quality of life, intervention reach, and cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The trial will be conducted in 12 urban health facilities in Lusaka, Zambia over a 30-month period. Clinical outcomes will be assessed via surveys with PLHIV accessing routine HIV services, and a prospective cohort of PLHIV with cardiometabolic comorbidities nested within the larger trial. We will also collect data using mixed methods, including in-depth interviews, questionnaires, focus group discussions, and structured observations, and estimate cost-effectiveness through time-and-motion studies and other costing methods, to understand implementation outcomes according to Proctor's Outcomes for Implementation Research, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and selected dimensions of RE-AIM.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Findings from this study will be used to make discrete, actionable, and context-specific recommendations in Zambia and the region for integrating cardiometabolic NCD care into national HIV treatment programs. While the TASKPEN study focuses on cardiometabolic NCDs in PLHIV, the multifaceted implementation strategy studied will be relevant to other NCDs and to people without HIV. It is expected that the trial will generate new insights that enable delivery of high-quality integrated HIV-NCD care, which may improve cardiovascular morbidity and viral suppression for PLHIV in SSA. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05950919).</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"5 1","pages":"61"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11155136/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141285487","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-06-03DOI: 10.1186/s43058-024-00598-5
Jessica N Rivera Rivera, Katarina E AuBuchon, Laura C Schubel, Claire Starling, Jennifer Tran, Marjorie Locke, Melanie Grady, Mihriye Mete, H Joseph Blumenthal, Jessica E Galarraga, Hannah Arem
Background: Black individuals in the United States (US) have a higher incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to other racial groups, and CRC is the second leading cause of death among Hispanic/Latino populations in the US. Patient navigation is an evidence-based approach to narrow inequities in cancer screening among Black and Hispanic/Latino patients. Despite this, limited healthcare systems have implemented patient navigation for screening at scale.
Methods: We are conducting a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial of 15 primary care clinics with six steps of six-month duration to scale a patient navigation program to improve screening rates among Black and Hispanic/Latino patients. After six months of baseline data collection with no intervention we will randomize clinics, whereby three clinics will join the intervention arm every six months until all clinics cross over to intervention. During the intervention roll out we will conduct training and education for clinics, change infrastructure in the electronic health record, create stakeholder relationships, assess readiness, and deliver iterative feedback. Framed by the Practical, Robust Implementation Sustainment Model (PRISM) we will focus on effectiveness, reach, provider adoption, and implementation. We will document adaptations to both the patient navigation intervention and to implementation strategies. To address health equity, we will engage multilevel stakeholder voices through interviews and a community advisory board to plan, deliver, adapt, measure, and disseminate study progress. Provider-level feedback will include updates on disparities in screening orders and completions.
Discussion: Primary care clinics are poised to close disparity gaps in CRC screening completion but may lack an understanding of the magnitude of these gaps and how to address them. We aim to understand how to tailor a patient navigation program for CRC screening to patients and providers across diverse clinics with wide variation in baseline screening rates, payor mix, proximity to specialty care, and patient volume. Findings from this study will inform other primary care practices and health systems on effective and sustainable strategies to deliver patient navigation for CRC screening among racial and ethnic minorities.
{"title":"Supporting ColoREctal Equitable Navigation (SCREEN): a protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial for patient navigation in primary care.","authors":"Jessica N Rivera Rivera, Katarina E AuBuchon, Laura C Schubel, Claire Starling, Jennifer Tran, Marjorie Locke, Melanie Grady, Mihriye Mete, H Joseph Blumenthal, Jessica E Galarraga, Hannah Arem","doi":"10.1186/s43058-024-00598-5","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-024-00598-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Black individuals in the United States (US) have a higher incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to other racial groups, and CRC is the second leading cause of death among Hispanic/Latino populations in the US. Patient navigation is an evidence-based approach to narrow inequities in cancer screening among Black and Hispanic/Latino patients. Despite this, limited healthcare systems have implemented patient navigation for screening at scale.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We are conducting a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial of 15 primary care clinics with six steps of six-month duration to scale a patient navigation program to improve screening rates among Black and Hispanic/Latino patients. After six months of baseline data collection with no intervention we will randomize clinics, whereby three clinics will join the intervention arm every six months until all clinics cross over to intervention. During the intervention roll out we will conduct training and education for clinics, change infrastructure in the electronic health record, create stakeholder relationships, assess readiness, and deliver iterative feedback. Framed by the Practical, Robust Implementation Sustainment Model (PRISM) we will focus on effectiveness, reach, provider adoption, and implementation. We will document adaptations to both the patient navigation intervention and to implementation strategies. To address health equity, we will engage multilevel stakeholder voices through interviews and a community advisory board to plan, deliver, adapt, measure, and disseminate study progress. Provider-level feedback will include updates on disparities in screening orders and completions.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Primary care clinics are poised to close disparity gaps in CRC screening completion but may lack an understanding of the magnitude of these gaps and how to address them. We aim to understand how to tailor a patient navigation program for CRC screening to patients and providers across diverse clinics with wide variation in baseline screening rates, payor mix, proximity to specialty care, and patient volume. Findings from this study will inform other primary care practices and health systems on effective and sustainable strategies to deliver patient navigation for CRC screening among racial and ethnic minorities.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>NCT06401174.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"5 1","pages":"60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11149321/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141238891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-23DOI: 10.1186/s43058-024-00595-8
Isabel Roth, Malik Tiedt, Carrie Brintz, Ariana Thompson-Lastad, Gayla Ferguson, Erum Agha, Jennifer Holcomb, Paula Gardiner, Jennifer Leeman
Background: Despite the critical need for comprehensive and effective chronic pain care, delivery of such care remains challenging. Group medical visits (GMVs) offer an innovative and efficient model for providing comprehensive care for patients with chronic pain. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify barriers and facilitators (determinants) to implementing GMVs for adult patients with chronic pain.
Methods: The review included peer-reviewed studies reporting findings on implementation of GMVs for chronic pain, inclusive of all study designs. Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched. Studies of individual appointments or group therapy were excluded. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to determine risk of bias. Data related to implementation determinants were extracted independently by two reviewers. Data synthesis was guided by the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.
Results: Thirty-three articles reporting on 25 studies met criteria for inclusion and included qualitative observational (n = 8), randomized controlled trial (n = 6), quantitative non-randomized (n = 9), quantitative descriptive (n = 3), and mixed methods designs (n = 7). The studies included in this review included a total of 2364 participants. Quality ratings were mixed, with qualitative articles receiving the highest quality ratings. Common multi-level determinants included the relative advantage of GMVs for chronic pain over other available models, the capability and motivation of clinicians, the cost of GMVs to patients and the health system, the need and opportunity of patients, the availability of resources and relational connections supporting recruitment and referral to GMVs within the clinic setting, and financing and policies within the outer setting.
Conclusions: Multi-level factors determine the implementation of GMVs for chronic pain. Future research is needed to investigate these determinants more thoroughly and to develop and test implementation strategies addressing these determinants to promote the scale-up of GMVs for patients with chronic pain.
Trial registration: This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021231310 .
{"title":"Determinants of implementation for group medical visits for patients with chronic pain: a systematic review.","authors":"Isabel Roth, Malik Tiedt, Carrie Brintz, Ariana Thompson-Lastad, Gayla Ferguson, Erum Agha, Jennifer Holcomb, Paula Gardiner, Jennifer Leeman","doi":"10.1186/s43058-024-00595-8","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-024-00595-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the critical need for comprehensive and effective chronic pain care, delivery of such care remains challenging. Group medical visits (GMVs) offer an innovative and efficient model for providing comprehensive care for patients with chronic pain. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify barriers and facilitators (determinants) to implementing GMVs for adult patients with chronic pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review included peer-reviewed studies reporting findings on implementation of GMVs for chronic pain, inclusive of all study designs. Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched. Studies of individual appointments or group therapy were excluded. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to determine risk of bias. Data related to implementation determinants were extracted independently by two reviewers. Data synthesis was guided by the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-three articles reporting on 25 studies met criteria for inclusion and included qualitative observational (n = 8), randomized controlled trial (n = 6), quantitative non-randomized (n = 9), quantitative descriptive (n = 3), and mixed methods designs (n = 7). The studies included in this review included a total of 2364 participants. Quality ratings were mixed, with qualitative articles receiving the highest quality ratings. Common multi-level determinants included the relative advantage of GMVs for chronic pain over other available models, the capability and motivation of clinicians, the cost of GMVs to patients and the health system, the need and opportunity of patients, the availability of resources and relational connections supporting recruitment and referral to GMVs within the clinic setting, and financing and policies within the outer setting.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Multi-level factors determine the implementation of GMVs for chronic pain. Future research is needed to investigate these determinants more thoroughly and to develop and test implementation strategies addressing these determinants to promote the scale-up of GMVs for patients with chronic pain.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021231310 .</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"5 1","pages":"59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11112917/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141089458","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-22DOI: 10.1186/s43058-024-00597-6
Karen M Emmons, Leslie Pelton-Cairns, Daniel A Gundersen, Jennifer L Cruz, Lynette Mascioli, Gina R Kruse
Background: Translational efforts to increase uptake of evidence-based practices typically look at those outcomes in isolation of their impact on other aspects of care delivery. If we are in fact to "do no harm", we must consider the possible negative impact of improving use of one practice on other quality measures. Alternatively, a focus on one practice could lead to spread of effective strategies to other practices, which would be highly beneficial. We studied the impact of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening initiative on delivery of other preventive care measures.
Methods: We used an interrupted time series design with implementation year as the interruption point. The initiative was conducted between 2015 and 2020, with three staggered cohorts. Main outcomes were quality measures for colorectal cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, hypertension management, diabetes management, weight screening and follow-up, tobacco use screening and cessation treatment, and depression screening and follow-up.
Results: The initiative was associated with an increase in CRC screening (OR = 1.67, p ≤ 0.01; average marginal effect = 12.2% points), and did not reduce performance on other quality measures in the year of CRC program implementation or a change in their respective secular trends.
Conclusions: The initiative led to a clinically meaningful increase in CRC screening and was not associated with reductions in delivery of six other preventive services. Quality improvement (QI) initiatives typically approach implementation with an eye towards reducing unintended impact and leveraging existing staff and resources. Implementation research studies may benefit from considering how QI initiatives factor in the local context in implementation efforts.
{"title":"Do no harm: the impact of implementing cancer prevention strategies on other preventive health measures.","authors":"Karen M Emmons, Leslie Pelton-Cairns, Daniel A Gundersen, Jennifer L Cruz, Lynette Mascioli, Gina R Kruse","doi":"10.1186/s43058-024-00597-6","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-024-00597-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Translational efforts to increase uptake of evidence-based practices typically look at those outcomes in isolation of their impact on other aspects of care delivery. If we are in fact to \"do no harm\", we must consider the possible negative impact of improving use of one practice on other quality measures. Alternatively, a focus on one practice could lead to spread of effective strategies to other practices, which would be highly beneficial. We studied the impact of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening initiative on delivery of other preventive care measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used an interrupted time series design with implementation year as the interruption point. The initiative was conducted between 2015 and 2020, with three staggered cohorts. Main outcomes were quality measures for colorectal cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, hypertension management, diabetes management, weight screening and follow-up, tobacco use screening and cessation treatment, and depression screening and follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initiative was associated with an increase in CRC screening (OR = 1.67, p ≤ 0.01; average marginal effect = 12.2% points), and did not reduce performance on other quality measures in the year of CRC program implementation or a change in their respective secular trends.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The initiative led to a clinically meaningful increase in CRC screening and was not associated with reductions in delivery of six other preventive services. Quality improvement (QI) initiatives typically approach implementation with an eye towards reducing unintended impact and leveraging existing staff and resources. Implementation research studies may benefit from considering how QI initiatives factor in the local context in implementation efforts.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"5 1","pages":"58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11112943/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141082748","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-21DOI: 10.1186/s43058-024-00594-9
Naomi Carlisle, Sonia Dalkin, Andrew H Shennan, Jane Sandall
Background: In the UK, 7.6% of babies are born preterm, which the Department of Health aims to decrease to 6% by 2025. To advance this, NHS England released Saving Babies Lives Care Bundle Version 2 Element 5, recommending the Preterm Birth Pathway for women at risk of preterm birth. The success of this new pathway depends on its implementation. The IMPART (IMplementation of the Preterm Birth Surveillance PAthway: a RealisT evaluation) study aimed to research how, why, for whom, to what extent and in what contexts the prediction and prevention aspects of Preterm Birth Surveillance Pathway is implemented through a realist evaluation. Realist implementation studies are growing in popularity.
Methods: Initial programme theories were developed through a realist informed literature scope, interviews with developers of the NHS England guidance, and a national questionnaire of current practice. Implementation theory was utilised in developing the programme theories. Data (interviews and observations with staff and women) were undertaken in 3 case sites in England to 'test' the programme theories. Substantive theory was utilised during data analysis to interpret and refine the theories on how implementation could be improved.
Results: Three explanatory areas were developed: risk assessing and referral; the preterm birth surveillance clinic; and women centred care. Explanatory area 1 dealt with the problems in correct risk assessment and referral to a preterm clinic. Explanatory area 2 focused on how once a correct referral has been made to a preterm clinic, knowledgeable and supported clinicians can deliver a well-functioning clinic. Explanatory area 3 concentrated on how the pathway delivers appropriate care to women.
Conclusions: The IMPART study provides several areas where implementation could be improved. These include educating clinicians on knowledge of risk factors and the purpose of the preterm clinic, having a multidisciplinary preterm team (including a preterm midwife) with specialist preterm knowledge and skills (including transvaginal cervical scanning skills), and sites actively working with their local network. This multidisciplinary preterm team are placed to deliver continuity of care for women at high-risk of preterm birth, being attentive to their history but also ensuring they are not defined by their risk status.
{"title":"IMplementation of the Preterm Birth Surveillance PAthway: a RealisT evaluation (The IMPART Study).","authors":"Naomi Carlisle, Sonia Dalkin, Andrew H Shennan, Jane Sandall","doi":"10.1186/s43058-024-00594-9","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-024-00594-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the UK, 7.6% of babies are born preterm, which the Department of Health aims to decrease to 6% by 2025. To advance this, NHS England released Saving Babies Lives Care Bundle Version 2 Element 5, recommending the Preterm Birth Pathway for women at risk of preterm birth. The success of this new pathway depends on its implementation. The IMPART (IMplementation of the Preterm Birth Surveillance PAthway: a RealisT evaluation) study aimed to research how, why, for whom, to what extent and in what contexts the prediction and prevention aspects of Preterm Birth Surveillance Pathway is implemented through a realist evaluation. Realist implementation studies are growing in popularity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Initial programme theories were developed through a realist informed literature scope, interviews with developers of the NHS England guidance, and a national questionnaire of current practice. Implementation theory was utilised in developing the programme theories. Data (interviews and observations with staff and women) were undertaken in 3 case sites in England to 'test' the programme theories. Substantive theory was utilised during data analysis to interpret and refine the theories on how implementation could be improved.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three explanatory areas were developed: risk assessing and referral; the preterm birth surveillance clinic; and women centred care. Explanatory area 1 dealt with the problems in correct risk assessment and referral to a preterm clinic. Explanatory area 2 focused on how once a correct referral has been made to a preterm clinic, knowledgeable and supported clinicians can deliver a well-functioning clinic. Explanatory area 3 concentrated on how the pathway delivers appropriate care to women.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The IMPART study provides several areas where implementation could be improved. These include educating clinicians on knowledge of risk factors and the purpose of the preterm clinic, having a multidisciplinary preterm team (including a preterm midwife) with specialist preterm knowledge and skills (including transvaginal cervical scanning skills), and sites actively working with their local network. This multidisciplinary preterm team are placed to deliver continuity of care for women at high-risk of preterm birth, being attentive to their history but also ensuring they are not defined by their risk status.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ISRCTN57127874.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"5 1","pages":"57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11110199/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141077156","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}