Vera Yakovchenko, Monica Merante, Matthew J Chinman, Brittney Neely, Carolyn Lamorte, Sandra Gibson, JoAnn Kirchner, Timothy R Morgan, Shari S Rogal
{"title":"The \"good enough\" facilitator: elucidating the role of working alliance in the mechanism of facilitation.","authors":"Vera Yakovchenko, Monica Merante, Matthew J Chinman, Brittney Neely, Carolyn Lamorte, Sandra Gibson, JoAnn Kirchner, Timothy R Morgan, Shari S Rogal","doi":"10.1186/s43058-025-00705-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While facilitation is a widely used implementation strategy with proven effectiveness, the development of the facilitator-recipient relationship, i.e., working alliance, has received limited attention. However, we hypothesize that working alliance may be part of the mechanism by which facilitation activates change. This study aimed to examine the associations between working alliance, facilitation, and change in clinical care in a hybrid type 3 trial of a manualized intervention, Getting to Implementation (GTI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This concurrent triangulation mixed-methods study was conducted at 12 sites in a stepped-wedge trial. We collected surveys using the Working Alliance Inventory-Short instrument (WAI), which includes three subscales of goal alignment, task alignment, and affective bond, from three respondent types (clinical facilitator, evaluation facilitator, and site team members) after a year of intervention. Facilitation activity type and dose were tracked. Summative qualitative interviews with site champions and facilitators) elicited perceptions on working alliance, facilitation, and experiences with the intervention, and results were triangulated with statistical bivariate analyses. The associations between WAI and facilitation time, fidelity, and change in liver cancer screening rate (the primary trial outcome) were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across 12 sites, facilitators and site team members completed 21 interviews and 40 WAI surveys, with site aggregate average working alliance scores of 5.9 ± 0.4 on a seven-point scale. Bond scores were highest (6.1 ± 0.5), followed by Goal (6.0 ± 0.4) and Task (5.8 ± 0.5) scores. Overall and subscale scores differed by respondent type, with site respondents consistently rating items higher than facilitators, particularly in Task items. Fidelity to the GTI process (e.g., timely completion of steps and tools) was significantly positively associated with WAI scores overall (r = 0.41, p = 0.007) and subscale scores, including Goal (r = 0.39, p = 0.011), Task (r = 0.42, p = 0.006), and Bond (r = 0.33, p = 0.039). WAI scores were not correlated with facilitation time (dose). WAI scores overall and the Bond and Goal scores were significantly positively associated with sustained improvement in cancer screening rates (r = 0.57, p = 0.015).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this implementation trial, working alliance between site teams and facilitators was positively associated with both fidelity and cancer screening outcomes and was notably independent of time spent providing facilitation. Findings highlight the importance of working alliance in implementation studies.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This project was registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov ( NCT04178096 ) on 4/29/20.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"6 1","pages":"22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11863522/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation science communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-025-00705-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管促进是一种广泛使用的实施策略,其有效性已得到证实,但促进者与受助者之间的关系(即工作联盟)的发展却很少受到关注。然而,我们假设工作联盟可能是促进激活变革机制的一部分。本研究的目的是在一项手册化干预的混合三类试验中,研究工作联盟、促进和临床护理变化之间的关联:这项同时进行的三角测量混合方法研究在阶梯试验的 12 个地点进行。在干预一年后,我们使用工作联盟量表-简式工具(WAI)对三种受访者类型(临床促进者、评估促进者和现场团队成员)进行了调查,其中包括目标一致性、任务一致性和情感纽带三个分量表。对促进活动的类型和剂量进行了跟踪。通过对现场负责人和促进者进行总结性定性访谈,了解他们对工作联盟、促进和干预经验的看法,并对结果进行双变量统计分析。评估了 WAI 与促进时间、忠诚度和肝癌筛查率变化(主要试验结果)之间的关联:在 12 个研究点中,促进者和研究点团队成员完成了 21 次访谈和 40 份 WAI 调查,研究点工作联盟的总平均得分为 5.9 ± 0.4(七分制)。联盟得分最高(6.1 ± 0.5),其次是目标得分(6.0 ± 0.4)和任务得分(5.8 ± 0.5)。总分和分量表得分因受访者类型而异,现场受访者对项目的评分始终高于促进者,特别是在任务项目中。对 GTI 流程的忠实度(例如,及时完成步骤和工具)与 WAI 总分(r = 0.41,p = 0.007)和子量表得分显著正相关,包括目标(r = 0.39,p = 0.011)、任务(r = 0.42,p = 0.006)和结合(r = 0.33,p = 0.039)。WAI 分数与促进时间(剂量)不相关。WAI 总分以及 Bond 和目标得分与癌症筛查率的持续提高呈显著正相关(r = 0.57,p = 0.015):在这项实施试验中,现场团队与促进者之间的工作联盟与忠实度和癌症筛查结果均呈正相关,且与提供促进所花费的时间明显无关。研究结果凸显了工作联盟在实施研究中的重要性:该项目于 20 年 4 月 29 日在 ClinicalTrials.Gov ( NCT04178096 ) 上注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The "good enough" facilitator: elucidating the role of working alliance in the mechanism of facilitation.

Background: While facilitation is a widely used implementation strategy with proven effectiveness, the development of the facilitator-recipient relationship, i.e., working alliance, has received limited attention. However, we hypothesize that working alliance may be part of the mechanism by which facilitation activates change. This study aimed to examine the associations between working alliance, facilitation, and change in clinical care in a hybrid type 3 trial of a manualized intervention, Getting to Implementation (GTI).

Methods: This concurrent triangulation mixed-methods study was conducted at 12 sites in a stepped-wedge trial. We collected surveys using the Working Alliance Inventory-Short instrument (WAI), which includes three subscales of goal alignment, task alignment, and affective bond, from three respondent types (clinical facilitator, evaluation facilitator, and site team members) after a year of intervention. Facilitation activity type and dose were tracked. Summative qualitative interviews with site champions and facilitators) elicited perceptions on working alliance, facilitation, and experiences with the intervention, and results were triangulated with statistical bivariate analyses. The associations between WAI and facilitation time, fidelity, and change in liver cancer screening rate (the primary trial outcome) were assessed.

Results: Across 12 sites, facilitators and site team members completed 21 interviews and 40 WAI surveys, with site aggregate average working alliance scores of 5.9 ± 0.4 on a seven-point scale. Bond scores were highest (6.1 ± 0.5), followed by Goal (6.0 ± 0.4) and Task (5.8 ± 0.5) scores. Overall and subscale scores differed by respondent type, with site respondents consistently rating items higher than facilitators, particularly in Task items. Fidelity to the GTI process (e.g., timely completion of steps and tools) was significantly positively associated with WAI scores overall (r = 0.41, p = 0.007) and subscale scores, including Goal (r = 0.39, p = 0.011), Task (r = 0.42, p = 0.006), and Bond (r = 0.33, p = 0.039). WAI scores were not correlated with facilitation time (dose). WAI scores overall and the Bond and Goal scores were significantly positively associated with sustained improvement in cancer screening rates (r = 0.57, p = 0.015).

Conclusions: In this implementation trial, working alliance between site teams and facilitators was positively associated with both fidelity and cancer screening outcomes and was notably independent of time spent providing facilitation. Findings highlight the importance of working alliance in implementation studies.

Trial registration: This project was registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov ( NCT04178096 ) on 4/29/20.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Barriers and facilitators to HPV vaccination in rural South Carolina pharmacies: a qualitative investigation. Combined use of the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework with other implementation frameworks: a systematic review. Applying the major system change framework to evaluate implementation of rapid healthcare system change: a case study of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services. Evaluation of a notes-based rapid qualitative analysis method to facilitate implementation. Development of a method for qualitative data integration to advance implementation science within research consortia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1