Kathryn A Hyzak, Alicia C Bunger, Jennifer A Bogner, Alan K Davis
{"title":"识别障碍和实施策略,为行为医疗机构采用 TBI 筛查提供信息。","authors":"Kathryn A Hyzak, Alicia C Bunger, Jennifer A Bogner, Alan K Davis","doi":"10.1097/HTR.0000000000001004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Identify barriers to the adoption of the Ohio State University Traumatic Brain Injury Identification Method (OSU TBI-ID) in behavioral healthcare organizations and match these barriers to implementation strategies to inform future implementation efforts.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Twenty behavioral health providers.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Qualitative study involving individual, semi-structured interviews regarding barriers to adopting the OSU TBI-ID. Data were thematically analyzed around constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results were matched to strategies using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (CFIR/ERIC) matching tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten barriers were identified across 4 CFIR domains. Inner-Setting barriers were inadequate leadership engagement, priorities, resources, and organizational incentives. Individual-Characteristics barriers were insufficient knowledge about the connection between TBI and behavioral health and how to conduct the OSU TBI-ID with fidelity, low self-efficacy to conduct screening, and inadequate motivation and buy-in to conduct screening. Outer-Setting barriers were lack of state-level mandates and inadequate incentives to conduct screenings. The Process domain barrier was an insufficient engagement of key personnel. Strategy recommendations include: identify and prepare champions; alter incentive and allowance structures; inform local opinion leaders; build a coalition; access new funding; conduct local consensus discussions; involve executive boards; capture/share local knowledge; conduct educational meetings; assess for readiness and identify determinants; identify early adopters; fund and contract for the clinical innovation; create a learning collaborative; and conduct a local needs assessment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is the first study to examine barriers to adopting the OSU TBI-ID in real-world practice settings. Our results suggest that multilevel implementation strategies addressing mechanisms of change are necessary at the provider, organizational, and systems levels to overcome the complex barriers affecting TBI screening adoption and implementation. Future research is needed to test these strategies and their mechanisms of action on the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of TBI screening, as well as their effect on client-level outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":15901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"458-471"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11534562/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying Barriers and Implementation Strategies to Inform TBI Screening Adoption in Behavioral Healthcare Settings.\",\"authors\":\"Kathryn A Hyzak, Alicia C Bunger, Jennifer A Bogner, Alan K Davis\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/HTR.0000000000001004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Identify barriers to the adoption of the Ohio State University Traumatic Brain Injury Identification Method (OSU TBI-ID) in behavioral healthcare organizations and match these barriers to implementation strategies to inform future implementation efforts.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Twenty behavioral health providers.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Qualitative study involving individual, semi-structured interviews regarding barriers to adopting the OSU TBI-ID. Data were thematically analyzed around constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results were matched to strategies using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (CFIR/ERIC) matching tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten barriers were identified across 4 CFIR domains. Inner-Setting barriers were inadequate leadership engagement, priorities, resources, and organizational incentives. Individual-Characteristics barriers were insufficient knowledge about the connection between TBI and behavioral health and how to conduct the OSU TBI-ID with fidelity, low self-efficacy to conduct screening, and inadequate motivation and buy-in to conduct screening. Outer-Setting barriers were lack of state-level mandates and inadequate incentives to conduct screenings. The Process domain barrier was an insufficient engagement of key personnel. Strategy recommendations include: identify and prepare champions; alter incentive and allowance structures; inform local opinion leaders; build a coalition; access new funding; conduct local consensus discussions; involve executive boards; capture/share local knowledge; conduct educational meetings; assess for readiness and identify determinants; identify early adopters; fund and contract for the clinical innovation; create a learning collaborative; and conduct a local needs assessment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is the first study to examine barriers to adopting the OSU TBI-ID in real-world practice settings. Our results suggest that multilevel implementation strategies addressing mechanisms of change are necessary at the provider, organizational, and systems levels to overcome the complex barriers affecting TBI screening adoption and implementation. Future research is needed to test these strategies and their mechanisms of action on the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of TBI screening, as well as their effect on client-level outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15901,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"458-471\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11534562/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/HTR.0000000000001004\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HTR.0000000000001004","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目标:确定行为医疗机构采用俄亥俄州立大学创伤性脑损伤识别方法(OSU TBI-ID)的障碍,并将这些障碍与实施策略相匹配,为今后的实施工作提供参考:设计:设计:就采用 OSU TBI-ID 的障碍进行个人半结构化访谈的定性研究。围绕实施研究综合框架(CFIR)中的结构对数据进行主题分析。使用专家建议实施变革(CFIR/ERIC)匹配工具将结果与策略进行匹配:结果:在 CFIR 的 4 个领域中发现了 10 个障碍。内部设置障碍包括领导参与不足、优先事项、资源和组织激励不足。个人特征障碍是对创伤后应激障碍与行为健康之间的联系以及如何忠实执行 OSU 创伤后应激障碍识别的认识不足,进行筛查的自我效能低,以及进行筛查的动力和支持不足。外部环境障碍是缺乏州一级的强制要求以及开展筛查的激励措施不足。过程领域的障碍是关键人员参与不足。策略建议包括:确定支持者并为其做好准备;改变奖励和津贴结构;告知当地意见领袖;建立联盟;获得新的资金;开展当地共识讨论;让执行委员会参与;获取/分享当地知识;召开教育会议;评估准备情况并确定决定因素;确定早期采用者;为临床创新提供资金并签订合同;创建学习合作组织;以及开展当地需求评估:这是第一项研究,旨在探讨在现实世界的实践环境中采用 OSU TBI-ID 的障碍。我们的研究结果表明,要克服影响 TBI 筛查采用和实施的复杂障碍,有必要在提供者、组织和系统层面采取针对变革机制的多层次实施策略。未来的研究需要检验这些策略及其对采纳、实施和维持 TBI 筛查的作用机制,以及它们对客户层面结果的影响。
Identifying Barriers and Implementation Strategies to Inform TBI Screening Adoption in Behavioral Healthcare Settings.
Objective: Identify barriers to the adoption of the Ohio State University Traumatic Brain Injury Identification Method (OSU TBI-ID) in behavioral healthcare organizations and match these barriers to implementation strategies to inform future implementation efforts.
Participants: Twenty behavioral health providers.
Design: Qualitative study involving individual, semi-structured interviews regarding barriers to adopting the OSU TBI-ID. Data were thematically analyzed around constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results were matched to strategies using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (CFIR/ERIC) matching tool.
Results: Ten barriers were identified across 4 CFIR domains. Inner-Setting barriers were inadequate leadership engagement, priorities, resources, and organizational incentives. Individual-Characteristics barriers were insufficient knowledge about the connection between TBI and behavioral health and how to conduct the OSU TBI-ID with fidelity, low self-efficacy to conduct screening, and inadequate motivation and buy-in to conduct screening. Outer-Setting barriers were lack of state-level mandates and inadequate incentives to conduct screenings. The Process domain barrier was an insufficient engagement of key personnel. Strategy recommendations include: identify and prepare champions; alter incentive and allowance structures; inform local opinion leaders; build a coalition; access new funding; conduct local consensus discussions; involve executive boards; capture/share local knowledge; conduct educational meetings; assess for readiness and identify determinants; identify early adopters; fund and contract for the clinical innovation; create a learning collaborative; and conduct a local needs assessment.
Conclusions: This is the first study to examine barriers to adopting the OSU TBI-ID in real-world practice settings. Our results suggest that multilevel implementation strategies addressing mechanisms of change are necessary at the provider, organizational, and systems levels to overcome the complex barriers affecting TBI screening adoption and implementation. Future research is needed to test these strategies and their mechanisms of action on the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of TBI screening, as well as their effect on client-level outcomes.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation is a leading, peer-reviewed resource that provides up-to-date information on the clinical management and rehabilitation of persons with traumatic brain injuries. Six issues each year aspire to the vision of “knowledge informing care” and include a wide range of articles, topical issues, commentaries and special features. It is the official journal of the Brain Injury Association of America (BIAA).