1
|
Pinto R, Canário C, Leijten P, Rodrigo MJ, Cruz O. Implementation of Parenting Programs in Real-World Community Settings: A Scoping Review. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 2024; 27:74-90. [PMID: 38062309 PMCID: PMC10920434 DOI: 10.1007/s10567-023-00465-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/06/2023] [Indexed: 03/08/2024]
Abstract
Implementing parenting programs in real-world community settings is fundamental to making effective programs widely available and consequently improving the lives of children and their families. Despite the literature acknowledging that the high-quality implementation of parenting programs is particularly challenging in real-world community settings, little is known about how the programs are implemented in these settings. This scoping review followed the methodological framework described by the Joanna Briggs Institute to map evidence on how evidence-based parenting programs have been implemented under real-world conditions. A systematic search of 12 scientific databases, gray literature, and the reference lists of the included studies identified 1918 records, of which 145 were included in the review. Fifty-three parenting programs were identified in studies documenting implementation in real-world community settings worldwide. Most studies included families in psychosocial risk engaged with family-support agencies. The qualitative synthesis identified several implementation outcomes, adaptations, barriers, and facilitators. Most studies reported a maximum of two implementation outcomes, mainly fidelity and acceptability. Providers frequently made adaptations, mainly to bring down barriers and to tailor the program to improve its fit. Findings highlight the need for a more detailed description of the implementation of programs, with greater consistency in terminology, operationalization, and measurement of implementation outcomes across studies. This will promote a more transparent, consistent, and accurate evaluation and reporting of implementation and increase the public health impact of parenting programs. Future studies should also assess the impact of adaptations and the cost-effectiveness and sustainability of programs in real-world community settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rita Pinto
- Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
| | - Catarina Canário
- Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
| | - Patty Leijten
- Research Institute for Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maria José Rodrigo
- Department of Developmental Psychology and Education, Faculty of Psychology, University of La Laguna, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
| | - Orlanda Cruz
- Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Verweij L, Oesch S, Naef R. Tailored implementation of the FICUS multicomponent family support intervention in adult intensive care units: findings from a mixed methods contextual analysis. BMC Health Serv Res 2023; 23:1339. [PMID: 38041092 PMCID: PMC10693161 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-10285-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2023] [Accepted: 11/06/2023] [Indexed: 12/03/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Family in Intensive Care UnitS (FICUS) trial investigates the clinical effectiveness of a multicomponent, nurse-led interprofessional family support intervention (FSI) and explores its implementation in intensive care units (ICUs). The local context of each ICU strongly influences intervention performance in practice. To promote FSI uptake and to reduce variation in intervention delivery, we aimed to develop tailored implementation strategies. METHODS A mixed method contextual analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was performed from March to June 2022 on eight ICUs assigned to the intervention group. ICU key clinical partners were asked to complete a questionnaire on CFIR inner setting measures (i.e., organizational culture, resources, learning climate and leadership engagement) and the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale prior to group interviews, which were held to discuss barriers and facilitators to FSI implementation. Descriptive analysis and pragmatic rapid thematic analysis were used. Then, tailored implementation strategies were developed for each ICU. RESULTS In total, 33 key clinical partners returned the questionnaire and 40 attended eight group interviews. Results showed a supportive environment, with CFIR inner setting and ORIC measures each rated above 3 (scale: 1 low-5 high value), with leadership engagement scoring highest (median 4.00, IQR 0.38). Interview data showed that the ICU teams were highly motivated and committed to implementing the FSI. They reported limited resources, new interprofessional information exchange, and role adoption of nurses as challenging. CONCLUSION We found that important pre-conditions for FSI implementation, such as leadership support, a supportive team culture, and a good learning climate were present. Some aspects, such as available resources, interprofessional collaboration and family nurses' role adoption were of concern and needed attention. An initial set of implementation strategies were relevant to all ICUs, but some additions and adaptation to local needs were required. Multi-component interventions are challenging to implement within complex systems, such as ICUs. This pragmatic, theory-guided, mixed methods contextual analysis demonstrated high readiness and commitment to FSI implementation in the context of a clinical trial and enabled the specification of a tailored, multifaceted implementation strategy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lotte Verweij
- Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
- Centre of Clinical Nursing Science, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
| | - Saskia Oesch
- Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Rahel Naef
- Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Centre of Clinical Nursing Science, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Cidav Z, Mandell D, Ingersoll B, Pellecchia M. Programmatic Costs of Project ImPACT for Children with Autism: A Time-Driven Activity Based Costing Study. ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY IN MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH 2023; 50:402-416. [PMID: 36637638 PMCID: PMC9838366 DOI: 10.1007/s10488-022-01247-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/20/2022] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
Abstract
Programmatic cost assessment of clinical interventions can inform future dissemination and implementation efforts. We conducted a randomized trial of Project ImPACT (Improving Parents As Communication Teachers) in which community early intervention (EI) providers coached caregivers in techniques to improve young children's social communication skills. We estimated implementation and intervention costs while demonstrating an application of Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC). We defined Project ImPACT implementation and intervention as processes that can be broken down successively into a set of procedures. We created process maps for both implementation and intervention delivery. We determined resource use and costs, per unit procedure in the first year of the program, from a payer perspective. We estimated total implementation cost per clinician and per site, intervention cost per child, and provided estimates of total hours spent and associated costs for implementation strategies, intervention activities and their detailed procedures. Total implementation cost was $43,509 per clinic and $14,503 per clinician. Clinician time (60%) and coach time (12%) were the most expensive personnel resources. Implementation coordination and monitoring (47%), ongoing consultation (26%) and clinician training (19%) comprised most of the implementation cost, followed by fidelity assessment (7%), and stakeholder engagement (1%). Per-child intervention costs were $2619 and $9650, respectively, at a dose of one hour per week and four hours per week Project ImPACT. Clinician and clinic leader time accounted for 98% of per child intervention costs. Highest cost intervention activity was ImPACT delivery to parents (89%) followed by assessment for child's ImPACT eligibility (10%). The findings can be used to inform funding and policy decision-making to enhance early intervention options for young children with autism. Uncompensated time costs of clinicians are large which raises practical and ethical concerns and should be considered in planning of implementation initiatives. In program budgeting, decisionmakers should anticipate resource needs for coordination and monitoring activities. TDABC may encourage researchers to assess costs more systematically, relying on process mapping and gathering prospective data on resource use and costs concurrently with their collection of other trial data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zuleyha Cidav
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
| | - David Mandell
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Brooke Ingersoll
- Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
| | - Melanie Pellecchia
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Bartley L, Metz A, Fleming WO. What implementation strategies are relational? Using Relational Theory to explore the ERIC implementation strategies. FRONTIERS IN HEALTH SERVICES 2022; 2:913585. [PMID: 36925772 PMCID: PMC10012668 DOI: 10.3389/frhs.2022.913585] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2022] [Accepted: 09/20/2022] [Indexed: 03/18/2023]
Abstract
The identification and use of implementation strategies in implementation research and practice have strengthened our understanding of the implementation process as well as the causal pathways between mechanisms, strategies, and implementation outcomes. Although these contributions have advanced the application of strategies, there is still a need to learn more about how strategies might integrate relational exchanges and interactions. The inclusion of critical perspectives has been limited in implementation science, and theories such as Relational Theory can expand our understanding of the relational nature of implementation and enhance rigor through alternative theoretical applications. This study applied Relational Theory through a qualitative directed content analysis of the 73 Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) implementation strategies and examine relational components in strategy descriptions. Three reviewers used the structured approach to review and categorize the implementation strategies based on the Relational and Transactional Strategy Continuum measure, which operationalizes types of interactions, exchanges and alliances. Relational alliance strategies are those in which there is mutual growth and accountability, frequent interaction, shared power, and potential vulnerability. Operational alliances include forms of working exchanges between parties with balanced transactional and relational features. Operational alliances can be somewhat interactive in nature, with minor exchanges and limited accountability. Transactional alliance strategies are mostly uni-directional, influenced by power differentials, and do not require mutual growth, commitment, or exchange; thus, the power of growth is inherently one-sided. Results from the review suggest more implementation strategies with relational alliance features (highly relational, n = 17, semi-relational, n = 19) compared to transactional (highly transactional, n = 9, semi-transactional, n = 10) and 18 strategies coded as operational alliances. The qualitative review revealed opportunities to further expand how relational exchanges are considered within the implementation strategies descriptions, as well as the role of actors and power dynamics within strategy exchanges. The Relational and Transactional Strategy Continuum measure can help practitioners and researchers consider the sequencing, pairing, and impact on outcomes of different types and combinations of strategies in implementation practice and research. Additionally, the measure can support reflection on strategies that promote positive alliances, frequent connections, bi-directional communication, and power sharing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leah Bartley
- Kaye Implementation and Evaluation, Tacoma, WA, United States
| | - Allison Metz
- School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - W. Oscar Fleming
- School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Szewczyk Z, Reeves P, Kingsland M, Doherty E, Elliott E, Wolfenden L, Tsang TW, Dunlop A, Searles A, Wiggers J. Cost, cost-consequence and cost-effectiveness evaluation of a practice change intervention to increase routine provision of antenatal care addressing maternal alcohol consumption. Implement Sci 2022; 17:14. [PMID: 35120541 PMCID: PMC8815123 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-021-01180-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/21/2021] [Accepted: 12/07/2021] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Implementation of antenatal clinical guideline recommendations for addressing maternal alcohol consumption is sub-optimal. There is a complete absence of evidence of the cost and cost-effectiveness of delivering practice change interventions addressing maternal alcohol consumption amongst women accessing maternity services. The study sought to determine the cost, cost-consequence and cost-effectiveness of developing and delivering a multi-strategy practice change intervention in three sectors of a health district in New South Wales, Australia. Methods The trial-based economic analyses compared the costs and outcomes of the intervention to usual care over the 35-month period of the stepped-wedge trial. A health service provider perspective was selected to focus on the cost of delivering the practice change intervention, rather than the cost of delivering antenatal care itself. All costs are reported in Australian dollars ($AUD, 2019). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the effect of variation in intervention effect and costs. Results The total cost of delivering the practice change intervention across all three sectors was $367,646, of which $40,871 (11%) were development costs and $326,774 (89%) were delivery costs. Labour costs comprised 70% of the total intervention delivery cost. A single practice change strategy, ‘educational meetings and educational materials’ contributed 65% of the delivery cost. Based on the trial’s primary efficacy outcome, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio was calculated to be $32,570 (95% CI: $32,566–$36,340) per percent increase in receipt of guideline recommended care. Based on the number of women attending the maternity services during the trial period, the average incremental cost per woman who received all guideline elements was $591 (Range: $329 - $940) . The average cost of the intervention per eligible clinician was $993 (Range: $640-$1928). Conclusion The intervention was more effective than usual care, at an increased cost. Healthcare funders’ willingness to pay for this incremental effect is unknown. However, the strategic investment in systems change is expected to improve the efficiency of the practice change intervention over time. Given the positive trial findings, further research and monitoring is required to assess the sustainability of intervention effectiveness and whether economies of scale, or reduced costs of intervention delivery can be achieved without impact on outcomes. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, No. ACTRN12617000882325 (date registered: 16/06/2017). Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01180-6.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zoe Szewczyk
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia. .,School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
| | - Penny Reeves
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia.,School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Melanie Kingsland
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia.,School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.,Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Emma Doherty
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia.,School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.,Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Elizabeth Elliott
- School of Medicine, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.,Sydney Children's Hospital Network, Kids Research Institute, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Luke Wolfenden
- School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.,Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Tracey W Tsang
- School of Medicine, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.,Sydney Children's Hospital Network, Kids Research Institute, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Adrian Dunlop
- School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.,Drug and Alcohol Clinical Services, Hunter New England Local Health District, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Andrew Searles
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia.,School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia
| | - John Wiggers
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia.,School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.,Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Murrell JE, Pisegna JL, Juckett LA. Implementation strategies and outcomes for occupational therapy in adult stroke rehabilitation: a scoping review. Implement Sci 2021; 16:105. [PMID: 34922568 PMCID: PMC8684217 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-021-01178-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2021] [Accepted: 11/30/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Stroke survivors often encounter occupational therapy practitioners in rehabilitation practice settings. Occupational therapy researchers have recently begun to examine the implementation strategies that promote the use of evidence-based occupational therapy practices in stroke rehabilitation; however, the heterogeneity in how occupational therapy research is reported has led to confusion about the types of implementation strategies used in occupational therapy and their association with implementation outcomes. This review presents these strategies and corresponding outcomes using uniform language and identifies the extent to which strategy selection has been guided by theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs). METHODS A scoping review protocol was developed to assess the breadth and depth of occupational therapy literature examining implementation strategies, outcomes, and TMFs in the stroke rehabilitation field. Five electronic databases and two peer-reviewed implementation science journals were searched to identify studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers applied the inclusion parameters and consulted with a third reviewer to achieve consensus. The 73-item Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) implementation strategy taxonomy guided the synthesis of implementation strategies. The Implementation Outcomes Framework guided the analysis of measured outcomes. RESULTS The initial search yielded 1219 studies, and 26 were included in the final review. A total of 48 out of 73 discrete implementation strategies were described in the included studies. The most used implementation strategies were "distribute educational materials" (n = 11), "assess for readiness and identify barriers and facilitators" (n = 11), and "conduct educational outreach visits" (n = 10). "Adoption" was the most frequently measured implementation outcome, while "cost" was not measured in any included studies. Eleven studies reported findings supporting the effectiveness of their implementation strategy or strategies; eleven reported inconclusive findings, and four found that their strategies did not lead to improved implementation outcomes. In twelve studies, at least partially beneficial outcomes were reported, corresponding with researchers using TMFs to guide implementation strategies. CONCLUSIONS This scoping review synthesized implementation strategies and outcomes that have been examined in occupational therapy and stroke rehabilitation. With the growth of the stroke survivor population, the occupational therapy profession must identify effective strategies that promote the use of evidence-based practices in routine stroke care and describe those strategies, as well as associated outcomes, using uniform nomenclature. Doing so could advance the occupational therapy field's ability to draw conclusions about effective implementation strategies across diverse practice settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Edward Murrell
- Department of Health Services Administration, School of Health Professions, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
| | - Janell L Pisegna
- Division of Occupational Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Lisa A Juckett
- Division of Occupational Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Ridgeway JL, Branda ME, Gravholt D, Brito JP, Hargraves IG, Hartasanchez SA, Leppin AL, Gomez YL, Mann DM, Nautiyal V, Thomas RJ, Behnken EM, Torres Roldan VD, Shah ND, Khurana CS, Montori VM. Increasing risk-concordant cardiovascular care in diverse health systems: a mixed methods pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized implementation trial of shared decision making (SDM4IP). Implement Sci Commun 2021; 2:43. [PMID: 33883035 PMCID: PMC8058970 DOI: 10.1186/s43058-021-00145-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2021] [Accepted: 04/05/2021] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events is often less intense in persons at higher CV risk and vice versa. Clinical practice guidelines recommend that clinicians and patients use shared decision making (SDM) to arrive at an effective and feasible prevention plan that is congruent with each person's CV risk and informed preferences. However, SDM does not routinely happen in practice. This study aims to integrate into routine care an SDM decision tool (CV PREVENTION CHOICE) at three diverse healthcare systems in the USA and study strategies that foster its adoption and routine use. METHODS This is a mixed method, hybrid type III stepped wedge cluster randomized study to estimate (a) the effectiveness of implementation strategies on SDM uptake and utilization and (b) the extent to which SDM results in prevention plans that are risk-congruent. Formative evaluation methods, including clinician and stakeholder interviews and surveys, will identify factors likely to impact feasibility, acceptability, and adoption of CV PREVENTION CHOICE as well as normalization of CV PREVENTION CHOICE in routine care. Implementation facilitation will be used to tailor implementation strategies to local needs, and implementation strategies will be systematically adjusted and tracked for assessment and refinement. Electronic health record data will be used to assess implementation and effectiveness outcomes, including CV PREVENTION CHOICE reach, adoption, implementation, maintenance, and effectiveness (measured as risk-concordant care plans). A sample of video-recorded clinical encounters and patient surveys will be used to assess fidelity. The study employs three theoretical approaches: a determinant framework that calls attention to categories of factors that may foster or inhibit implementation outcomes (the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research), an implementation theory that guides explanation or understanding of causal influences on implementation outcomes (Normalization Process Theory), and an evaluation framework (RE-AIM). DISCUSSION By the project's end, we expect to have (a) identified the most effective implementation strategies to embed SDM in routine practice and (b) estimated the effectiveness of SDM to achieve feasible and risk-concordant CV prevention in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04450914 . Posted June 30, 2020 TRIAL STATUS: This study received ethics approval on April 17, 2020. The current trial protocol is version 2 (approved February 17, 2021). The first subject had not yet been enrolled at the time of submission.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer L Ridgeway
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
| | - Megan E Branda
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
- Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado-Denver Anschutz Medical Campus, 13001 East 17th Place, 3rd Floor, Mail Stop B119, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA
| | - Derek Gravholt
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Juan P Brito
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
- Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Ian G Hargraves
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Sandra A Hartasanchez
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Aaron L Leppin
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Yvonne L Gomez
- Altru Health System, 1380 S. Columbia Road, Grand Forks, ND, 58206, USA
| | - Devin M Mann
- Department of Population Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, 530 1st Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA
| | - Vivek Nautiyal
- Wellstar Cardiovascular Medicine, 55 Whitcher Street, NE, Suite 350, Marietta, GA, 30060, USA
| | - Randal J Thomas
- Division of Preventive Cardiology, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Emma M Behnken
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Victor D Torres Roldan
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Nilay D Shah
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Charanjit S Khurana
- Virginia Hospital Center Physician Group-Cardiology, 1715 North George Mason Drive, Arlington, VA, 22205, USA
| | - Victor M Montori
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
- Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Assessing Implementation Strategy Reporting in the Mental Health Literature: A Narrative Review. ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY IN MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH 2021; 47:19-35. [PMID: 31482489 DOI: 10.1007/s10488-019-00965-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Inadequate implementation strategy reporting restricts research synthesis and replicability. We explored the implementation strategy reporting quality of a sample of mental health articles using Proctor et al.'s (Implement Sci 8:139, 2013) reporting recommendations. We conducted a narrative review to generate the sample of articles and assigned a reporting quality score to each article. The mean article reporting score was 54% (range 17-100%). The most reported domains were: name (100%), action (82%), target (80%), and actor (67%). The least reported domains included definition (6%), temporality (26%), justification (34%), and outcome (37%). We discuss limitations and provide recommendations to improve reporting.
Collapse
|
9
|
Bunce AE, Gruß I, Davis JV, Cowburn S, Cohen D, Oakley J, Gold R. Lessons learned about the effective operationalization of champions as an implementation strategy: results from a qualitative process evaluation of a pragmatic trial. Implement Sci 2020; 15:87. [PMID: 32998750 PMCID: PMC7528604 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-020-01048-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2020] [Accepted: 09/16/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Though the knowledge base on implementation strategies is growing, much remains unknown about how to most effectively operationalize these strategies in diverse contexts. For example, while evidence shows that champions can effectively support implementation efforts in some circumstances, little has been reported on how to operationalize this role optimally in different settings, or on the specific pathways through which champions enact change. METHODS This is a secondary analysis of data from a pragmatic trial comparing implementation strategies supporting the adoption of guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing in community health centers in the USA. Quantitative data came from the community health centers' shared electronic health record; qualitative data sources included community health center staff interviews over 3 years. Using a convergent mixed-methods design, data were collected concurrently and merged for interpretation to identify factors associated with improved outcomes. Qualitative analysis was guided by the constant comparative method. As results from the quantitative and initial qualitative analyses indicated the essential role that champions played in promoting guideline-concordant prescribing, we conducted multiple immersion-crystallization cycles to better understand this finding. RESULTS Five community health centers demonstrated statistically significant increases in guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing. A combination of factors appeared key to their successful practice change: (1) A clinician champion who demonstrated a sustained commitment to implementation activities and exhibited engagement, influence, credibility, and capacity; and (2) organizational support for the intervention. In contrast, the seven community health centers that did not show improved outcomes lacked a champion with the necessary characteristics, and/or organizational support. Case studies illustrate the diverse, context-specific pathways that enabled or prevented study implementers from advancing practice change. CONCLUSION This analysis confirms the important role of champions in implementation efforts and offers insight into the context-specific mechanisms through which champions enact practice change. The results also highlight the potential impact of misaligned implementation support and key modifiable barriers and facilitators on implementation outcomes. Here, unexamined assumptions and a lack of evidence-based guidance on how best to identify and prepare effective champions led to implementation support that failed to address important barriers to intervention success. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02325531 . Registered 15 December 2014.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arwen E Bunce
- OCHIN, Inc., 1881 SW Naito Pkwy, Portland, OR, 97201, USA.
| | - Inga Gruß
- Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR, 97227, USA
| | - James V Davis
- Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR, 97227, USA
| | - Stuart Cowburn
- OCHIN, Inc., 1881 SW Naito Pkwy, Portland, OR, 97201, USA
| | - Deborah Cohen
- School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR, 97239-3098, USA
| | - Jee Oakley
- OCHIN, Inc., 1881 SW Naito Pkwy, Portland, OR, 97201, USA
| | - Rachel Gold
- OCHIN, Inc., 1881 SW Naito Pkwy, Portland, OR, 97201, USA.,Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR, 97227, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Cidav Z, Mandell D, Pyne J, Beidas R, Curran G, Marcus S. A pragmatic method for costing implementation strategies using time-driven activity-based costing. Implement Sci 2020; 15:28. [PMID: 32370752 PMCID: PMC7201568 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-020-00993-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2019] [Accepted: 04/16/2020] [Indexed: 01/12/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Implementation strategies increase the adoption of evidence-based practices, but they require resources. Although information about implementation costs is critical for decision-makers with budget constraints, cost information is not typically reported in the literature. This is at least partly due to a need for clearly defined, standardized costing methods that can be integrated into implementation effectiveness evaluation efforts. METHODS We present a pragmatic approach to systematically estimating detailed, specific resource use and costs of implementation strategies that combine time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC), a business accounting method based on process mapping and known for its practicality, with a leading implementation science framework developed by Proctor and colleagues, which guides specification and reporting of implementation strategies. We illustrate the application of this method using a case study with synthetic data. RESULTS This step-by-step method produces a clear map of the implementation process by specifying the names, actions, actors, and temporality of each implementation strategy; determining the frequency and duration of each action associated with individual strategies; and assigning a dollar value to the resources that each action consumes. The method provides transparent and granular cost estimation, allowing a cost comparison of different implementation strategies. The resulting data allow researchers and stakeholders to understand how specific components of an implementation strategy influence its overall cost. CONCLUSION TDABC can serve as a pragmatic method for estimating resource use and costs associated with distinct implementation strategies and their individual components. Our use of the Proctor framework for the process mapping stage of the TDABC provides a way to incorporate cost estimation into implementation evaluation and may reduce the burden associated with economic evaluations in implementation science.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zuleyha Cidav
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
| | - David Mandell
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Jeffrey Pyne
- Center for Mental Healthcare and Outcomes Research, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, North Little Rock, AR, USA
- South Central Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center, Central Arkansas, Little Rock, USA
- Veterans Healthcare System, North Little Rock, AR, USA
- Division of Health Services Research, Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA
| | - Rinad Beidas
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Penn Implementation Science Center, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, Philadelphia, USA
| | - Geoffrey Curran
- Departments of Pharmacy Practice and Psychiatry, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA
- Center for Implementation Research, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA
- Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Little Rock, AR, USA
| | - Steven Marcus
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- School of Social Policy and Practice, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Allen P, Jacob RR, Parks RG, Mazzucca S, Hu H, Robinson M, Dobbins M, Dekker D, Padek M, Brownson RC. Perspectives on program mis-implementation among U.S. local public health departments. BMC Health Serv Res 2020; 20:258. [PMID: 32228688 PMCID: PMC7106610 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-020-05141-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2019] [Accepted: 03/23/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Public health resources are limited and best used for effective programs. This study explores associations of mis-implementation in public health (ending effective programs or continuing ineffective programs) with organizational supports for evidence-based decision making among U.S. local health departments. METHODS The national U.S. sample for this cross-sectional study was stratified by local health department jurisdiction population size. One person was invited from each randomly selected local health department: the leader in chronic disease, or the director. Of 600 selected, 579 had valid email addresses; 376 completed the survey (64.9% response). Survey items assessed frequency of and reasons for mis-implementation. Participants indicated agreement with statements on organizational supports for evidence-based decision making (7-point Likert). RESULTS Thirty percent (30.0%) reported programs often or always ended that should have continued (inappropriate termination); organizational supports for evidence-based decision making were not associated with the frequency of programs ending. The main reason given for inappropriate termination was grant funding ended (86.0%). Fewer (16.4%) reported programs often or always continued that should have ended (inappropriate continuation). Higher perceived organizational supports for evidence-based decision making were associated with less frequent inappropriate continuation (odds ratio = 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.79, 0.94). All organizational support factors were negatively associated with inappropriate continuation. Top reasons were sustained funding (55.6%) and support from policymakers (34.0%). CONCLUSIONS Organizational supports for evidence-based decision making may help local health departments avoid continuing programs that should end. Creative mechanisms of support are needed to avoid inappropriate termination. Understanding what influences mis-implementation can help identify supports for de-implementation of ineffective programs so resources can go towards evidence-based programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peg Allen
- Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130-4838, USA.
| | - Rebekah R Jacob
- Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130-4838, USA
| | - Renee G Parks
- Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130-4838, USA
| | - Stephanie Mazzucca
- Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130-4838, USA
| | - Hengrui Hu
- Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130-4838, USA
| | - Mackenzie Robinson
- Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130-4838, USA
| | - Maureen Dobbins
- National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, McMaster University, McMaster Innovation Park (MIP), 175 Longwood Road South, Suite 210a, Hamilton, Ontario, L8P 0A1, Canada
| | - Debra Dekker
- National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), 1201 Eye Street, NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC, 20005, USA
| | - Margaret Padek
- Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130-4838, USA
| | - Ross C Brownson
- Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130-4838, USA
- Department of Surgery (Division of Public Health Sciences) and Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine; Washington University in St. Louis, 4921 Parkview Place, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Assessing Implementation Strategy Reporting in the Mental Health Literature: A Narrative Review. ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY IN MENTAL HEALTH 2019. [PMID: 31482489 DOI: 10.1007/s10488‐019‐00965‐8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
Inadequate implementation strategy reporting restricts research synthesis and replicability. We explored the implementation strategy reporting quality of a sample of mental health articles using Proctor et al.'s (Implement Sci 8:139, 2013) reporting recommendations. We conducted a narrative review to generate the sample of articles and assigned a reporting quality score to each article. The mean article reporting score was 54% (range 17-100%). The most reported domains were: name (100%), action (82%), target (80%), and actor (67%). The least reported domains included definition (6%), temporality (26%), justification (34%), and outcome (37%). We discuss limitations and provide recommendations to improve reporting.
Collapse
|
13
|
Perry CK, Damschroder LJ, Hemler JR, Woodson TT, Ono SS, Cohen DJ. Specifying and comparing implementation strategies across seven large implementation interventions: a practical application of theory. Implement Sci 2019. [PMID: 30898133 DOI: 10.1186/s13012‐019‐0876‐4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The use of implementation strategies is an active and purposive approach to translate research findings into routine clinical care. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) identified and defined discrete implementation strategies, and Proctor and colleagues have made recommendations for specifying operationalization of each strategy. We use empirical data to test how the ERIC taxonomy applies to a large dissemination and implementation initiative aimed at taking cardiac prevention to scale in primary care practice. METHODS EvidenceNOW is an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality initiative that funded seven cooperatives across seven regions in the USA. Cooperatives implemented multi-component interventions to improve heart health and build quality improvement capacity, and used a range of implementation strategies to foster practice change. We used ERIC to identify cooperatives' implementation strategies and specified the actor, action, target, dose, temporality, justification, and expected outcome for each. We mapped and compiled a matrix of the specified ERIC strategies across the cooperatives, and used consensus to resolve mapping differences. We then grouped implementation strategies by outcomes and justifications, which led to insights regarding the use of and linkages between ERIC strategies in real-world scale-up efforts. RESULTS Thirty-three ERIC strategies were used by cooperatives. We identified a range of revisions to the ERIC taxonomy to improve the practical application of these strategies. These proposed changes include revisions to four strategy names and 12 definitions. We suggest adding three new strategies because they encapsulate distinct actions that were not described in the existing ERIC taxonomy. In addition, we organized ERIC implementation strategies into four functional groupings based on the way we observed them being applied in practice. These groupings show how ERIC strategies are, out of necessity, interconnected, to achieve the work involved in rapidly taking evidence to scale. CONCLUSIONS Findings of our work suggest revisions to the ERIC implementation strategies to reflect their utilization in real-work dissemination and implementation efforts. The functional groupings of the ERIC implementation strategies that emerged from on-the-ground implementers will help guide others in choosing among and linking multiple implementation strategies when planning small- and large-scale implementation efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION Registered as Observational Study at www.clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02560428 ).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cynthia K Perry
- School of Nursing, Oregon Health & Science University, 3455 SW US Veterans Hospital Rd, Portland, OR, 97239, USA.
| | - Laura J Damschroder
- Implementation Pathways, LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.,VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Jennifer R Hemler
- Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers University--Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, 112 Paterson Street, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USA
| | - Tanisha T Woodson
- Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR, 97239, USA
| | - Sarah S Ono
- Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR, 97239, USA
| | - Deborah J Cohen
- Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR, 97239, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Perry CK, Damschroder LJ, Hemler JR, Woodson TT, Ono SS, Cohen DJ. Specifying and comparing implementation strategies across seven large implementation interventions: a practical application of theory. Implement Sci 2019; 14:32. [PMID: 30898133 PMCID: PMC6429753 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-019-0876-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 114] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2019] [Accepted: 02/28/2019] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The use of implementation strategies is an active and purposive approach to translate research findings into routine clinical care. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) identified and defined discrete implementation strategies, and Proctor and colleagues have made recommendations for specifying operationalization of each strategy. We use empirical data to test how the ERIC taxonomy applies to a large dissemination and implementation initiative aimed at taking cardiac prevention to scale in primary care practice. METHODS EvidenceNOW is an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality initiative that funded seven cooperatives across seven regions in the USA. Cooperatives implemented multi-component interventions to improve heart health and build quality improvement capacity, and used a range of implementation strategies to foster practice change. We used ERIC to identify cooperatives' implementation strategies and specified the actor, action, target, dose, temporality, justification, and expected outcome for each. We mapped and compiled a matrix of the specified ERIC strategies across the cooperatives, and used consensus to resolve mapping differences. We then grouped implementation strategies by outcomes and justifications, which led to insights regarding the use of and linkages between ERIC strategies in real-world scale-up efforts. RESULTS Thirty-three ERIC strategies were used by cooperatives. We identified a range of revisions to the ERIC taxonomy to improve the practical application of these strategies. These proposed changes include revisions to four strategy names and 12 definitions. We suggest adding three new strategies because they encapsulate distinct actions that were not described in the existing ERIC taxonomy. In addition, we organized ERIC implementation strategies into four functional groupings based on the way we observed them being applied in practice. These groupings show how ERIC strategies are, out of necessity, interconnected, to achieve the work involved in rapidly taking evidence to scale. CONCLUSIONS Findings of our work suggest revisions to the ERIC implementation strategies to reflect their utilization in real-work dissemination and implementation efforts. The functional groupings of the ERIC implementation strategies that emerged from on-the-ground implementers will help guide others in choosing among and linking multiple implementation strategies when planning small- and large-scale implementation efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION Registered as Observational Study at www.clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02560428 ).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cynthia K Perry
- School of Nursing, Oregon Health & Science University, 3455 SW US Veterans Hospital Rd, Portland, OR, 97239, USA.
| | - Laura J Damschroder
- Implementation Pathways, LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.,VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Jennifer R Hemler
- Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers University--Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, 112 Paterson Street, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USA
| | - Tanisha T Woodson
- Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR, 97239, USA
| | - Sarah S Ono
- Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR, 97239, USA
| | - Deborah J Cohen
- Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR, 97239, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Proctor E, Hooley C, Morse A, McCrary S, Kim H, Kohl PL. Intermediary/purveyor organizations for evidence-based interventions in the US child mental health: characteristics and implementation strategies. Implement Sci 2019; 14:3. [PMID: 30642342 PMCID: PMC6332855 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-018-0845-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2018] [Accepted: 11/28/2018] [Indexed: 04/23/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Many psychosocial interventions are disseminated and supported by organizations, termed “Intermediary/Purveyor Organizations” (IPOs). Because IPOs remain largely unstudied, we lack understanding of their scale and the strategies they utilize. The role and function of organizations that link resource systems with user systems, such as IPOs, have been identified as an important but understudied issue in implementation science. The objectives of this paper are to describe features of IPOs that disseminate evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for child behavioral health and identify the strategies they use to support their implementation. Methods The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services (SAMHSA) National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP) listed 119 unique IPOs for the 127 child behavioral health EBIs listed on its website. Data characterizing each organization were drawn from NREPP and GuideStar profiles. From 119 unique IPOs identified, we found contact information for 108. We sent an electronic survey to capture additional organizational information and implementation strategies the IPOs employed in spreading the EBIs; response rate was 50%. Data are presented descriptively and analyzed using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression and Latent Class Analysis (LCA). Results Virtually all identified EBIs had an IPO. IPOs train individuals, organizations, and communities and provide supervision for the use of EBIs. About 20% of IPOs trained at large scale, some training 500–1000+ providers annually. IPOs reported using an average of 32 distinct strategies to implement their EBIs, with most using educational, planning, and quality improvement strategies. However, there was little convergence around strategy helpfulness. The only significant predictor of number of strategies used by an IPO was the NREPP-posted implementation readiness score of the intervention. LCA revealed that IPOs either used several implementation strategies or used very few. Conclusions Findings add significantly to knowledge about IPO structure, scale, and function. They use numerous and varying implementation strategies but report little consensus in what works. The study advances methods for measuring and characterizing real-world implementation by demonstrating the feasibility of using a common nomenclature, per a published compilation and of LCA for data reduction in characterizing profiles of implementation approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Enola Proctor
- Washington University Brown School of Social Work, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA.
| | - Cole Hooley
- Washington University Brown School of Social Work, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA
| | - Amber Morse
- Washington University Brown School of Social Work, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA
| | - Stacey McCrary
- Washington University Brown School of Social Work, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA
| | - Hyunil Kim
- University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign School of Social Work, Urbana, USA
| | - Patricia L Kohl
- Washington University Brown School of Social Work, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Proctor E. The Pursuit of Quality for Social Work Practice: Three Generations and Counting. JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR SOCIAL WORK AND RESEARCH 2018; 8:335-353. [PMID: 29868150 PMCID: PMC5982535 DOI: 10.1086/693431] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/02/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Enola Proctor
- Shanti K. Khinduka Distinguished Professor and director of the Center for Mental Health Services Research at Washington University in St. Louis
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Boyd MR, Powell BJ, Endicott D, Lewis CC. A Method for Tracking Implementation Strategies: An Exemplar Implementing Measurement-Based Care in Community Behavioral Health Clinics. Behav Ther 2018; 49:525-537. [PMID: 29937255 PMCID: PMC6020155 DOI: 10.1016/j.beth.2017.11.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 71] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2017] [Revised: 11/14/2017] [Accepted: 11/14/2017] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Implementation experts suggest tailoring strategies to the intended context may enhance outcomes. However, it remains unclear which strategies are best suited to address specific barriers to implementation, in part because few measurement methods exist that adhere to recommendations for reporting. In the context of a dynamic cluster randomized trial comparing a standardized to tailored approach to implementing measurement-based care (MBC), this study aimed to (a) describe a method for tracking implementation strategies, (b) demonstrate the method by tracking strategies generated by teams tasked with implementing MBC at their clinics in the tailored condition, and (c) conduct preliminary examinations of the relation between strategy use and implementation outcomes (i.e., self-reported fidelity to MBC). The method consisted of a coding form based on Proctor, Powell, and McMillen (2013) implementation strategy reporting guidelines and Powell et al.'s (2012) taxonomy to facilitate specification of the strategies. A trained research specialist coded digitally recorded implementation team meetings. The method allowed for the following characterization of strategy use. Each site generated 39 unique strategies across an average of six meetings in five months. There was little variability in the use of types of implementation strategies across sites with the following order of prevalence: quality management (50.00%), restructuring (16.53%), communication (15.68%), education (8.90%), planning (7.20%), and financing (1.69%). We identified a new category of strategies not captured by the existing taxonomy, labeled "communication." There was no evidence that number of implementation strategies enacted was statistically significantly associated with changes in self-reported fidelity to MBC-however, financing strategies were associated with increased fidelity. This method has the capacity to yield rich data that will inform investigations into tailored implementation approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Meredith R. Boyd
- Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, 1101 East
10 Street, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA
| | - Byron J. Powell
- Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
| | - David Endicott
- Indiana Statistical Consulting Center and Department of Political
Sciences, Indiana University, 1100 East 7 Street, Bloomington, IN
47408, USA
| | - Cara C. Lewis
- Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, 1101 East
10 Street, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA,Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor
Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101, USA,Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School
of Medicine, 6200 NE 74 Street, Suite 100, Seattle, WA 98115, USA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Huynh AK, Hamilton AB, Farmer MM, Bean-Mayberry B, Stirman SW, Moin T, Finley EP. A Pragmatic Approach to Guide Implementation Evaluation Research: Strategy Mapping for Complex Interventions. Front Public Health 2018; 6:134. [PMID: 29868542 PMCID: PMC5968102 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00134] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2018] [Accepted: 04/20/2018] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Greater specification of implementation strategies is a challenge for implementation science, but there is little guidance for delineating the use of multiple strategies involved in complex interventions. The Cardiovascular (CV) Toolkit project entails implementation of a toolkit designed to reduce CV risk by increasing women's engagement in appropriate services. The CV Toolkit project follows an enhanced version of Replicating Effective Programs (REP), an evidence-based implementation strategy, to implement the CV Toolkit across four phases: pre-conditions, pre-implementation, implementation, and maintenance and evolution. Our current objective is to describe a method for mapping implementation strategies used in real time as part of the CV Toolkit project. This method supports description of the timing and content of bundled strategies and provides a structured process for developing a plan for implementation evaluation. METHODS We conducted a process of strategy mapping to apply Proctor and colleagues' rubric for specification of implementation strategies, constructing a matrix in which we identified each implementation strategy, its conceptual group, and the corresponding REP phase(s) in which it occurs. For each strategy, we also specified the actors involved, actions undertaken, action targets, dose of the implementation strategy, and anticipated outcome addressed. We iteratively refined the matrix with the implementation team, including use of simulation to provide initial validation. RESULTS Mapping revealed patterns in the timing of implementation strategies within REP phases. Most implementation strategies involving the development of stakeholder interrelationships and training and educating stakeholders were introduced during the pre-conditions or pre-implementation phases. Strategies introduced in the maintenance and evolution phase emphasized communication, re-examination, and audit and feedback. In addition to its value for producing valid and reliable process evaluation data, mapping implementation strategies has informed development of a pragmatic blueprint for implementation and longitudinal analyses and evaluation activities. DISCUSSION We update recent recommendations on specification of implementation strategies by considering the implications for multi-strategy frameworks and propose an approach for mapping the use of implementation strategies within complex, multi-level interventions, in support of rigorous evaluation. Developing pragmatic tools to aid in operationalizing the conduct of implementation and evaluation activities is essential to enacting sound implementation research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexis K. Huynh
- VA Greater Los Angeles HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Alison B. Hamilton
- VA Greater Los Angeles HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy, Los Angeles, CA, United States
- David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Melissa M. Farmer
- VA Greater Los Angeles HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Bevanne Bean-Mayberry
- VA Greater Los Angeles HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy, Los Angeles, CA, United States
- David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Shannon Wiltsey Stirman
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States
- VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Menlo Park, CA, United States
| | - Tannaz Moin
- VA Greater Los Angeles HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy, Los Angeles, CA, United States
- David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Erin P. Finley
- South Texas Veterans Healthcare System, San Antonio, TX, United States
- UT Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, United States
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Wright TB, Adams K, Church VL, Ferraro M, Ragland S, Sayers A, Tallett S, Lovejoy T, Ash J, Holahan PJ, Lesselroth BJ. Implementation of a Medication Reconciliation Assistive Technology: A Qualitative Analysis. AMIA ... ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS. AMIA SYMPOSIUM 2018; 2017:1802-1811. [PMID: 29854251 PMCID: PMC5977680] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
Abstract
Objective: To aid the implementation of a medication reconciliation process within a hybrid primary-specialty care setting by using qualitative techniques to describe the climate of implementation and provide guidance for future projects. Methods: Guided by McMullen et al's Rapid Assessment Process1, we performed semi-structured interviews prior to and iteratively throughout the implementation. Interviews were coded and analyzed using grounded theory2 and cross-examined for validity. Results: We identified five barriers and five facilitators that impacted the implementation. Facilitators identified were process alignment with user values, and motivation and clinical champions fostered by the implementation team rather than the administration. Barriers included a perceived limited capacity for change, diverging priorities, and inconsistencies in process standards and role definitions. Discussion: A more complete, qualitative understanding of existing barriers and facilitators helps to guide critical decisions on the design and implementation of a successful medication reconciliation process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Theodore B Wright
- Veterans Affairs Portland Healthcare System, Portland, OR
- Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland OR
| | - Kathleen Adams
- Veterans Affairs Portland Healthcare System, Portland, OR
| | | | - Mimi Ferraro
- Veterans Affairs Portland Healthcare System, Portland, OR
| | - Scott Ragland
- Veterans Affairs Portland Healthcare System, Portland, OR
| | - Anthony Sayers
- Veterans Affairs Portland Healthcare System, Portland, OR
| | | | - Travis Lovejoy
- Veterans Affairs Portland Healthcare System, Portland, OR
| | - Joan Ash
- Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland OR
| | | | - Blake J Lesselroth
- Veterans Affairs Portland Healthcare System, Portland, OR
- Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland OR
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Balasubramanian BA, Marino M, Cohen DJ, Ward RL, Preston A, Springer RJ, Lindner SR, Edwards S, McConnell KJ, Crabtree BF, Miller WL, Stange KC, Solberg LI. Use of Quality Improvement Strategies Among Small to Medium-Size US Primary Care Practices. Ann Fam Med 2018; 16:S35-S43. [PMID: 29632224 PMCID: PMC5891312 DOI: 10.1370/afm.2172] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2017] [Revised: 11/07/2017] [Accepted: 11/15/2017] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Improving primary care quality is a national priority, but little is known about the extent to which small to medium-size practices use quality improvement (QI) strategies to improve care. We examined variations in use of QI strategies among 1,181 small to medium-size primary care practices engaged in a national initiative spanning 12 US states to improve quality of care for heart health and assessed factors associated with those variations. METHODS In this cross-sectional study, practice characteristics were assessed by surveying practice leaders. Practice use of QI strategies was measured by the validated Change Process Capability Questionnaire (CPCQ) Strategies Scale (scores range from -28 to 28, with higher scores indicating more use of QI strategies). Multivariable linear regression was used to examine the association between practice characteristics and the CPCQ strategies score. RESULTS The mean CPCQ strategies score was 9.1 (SD = 12.2). Practices that participated in accountable care organizations and those that had someone in the practice to configure clinical quality reports from electronic health records (EHRs), had produced quality reports, or had discussed clinical quality data during meetings had higher CPCQ strategies scores. Health system-owned practices and those experiencing major disruptive changes, such as implementing a new EHR system or clinician turnover, had lower CPCQ strategies scores. CONCLUSION There is substantial variation in the use of QI strategies among small to medium-size primary care practices across 12 US states. Findings suggest that practices may need external support to strengthen their ability to do QI and to be prepared for new payment and delivery models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bijal A Balasubramanian
- Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, UTHealth School of Public Health in Dallas, Dallas, Texas (Balasubramanian, Ward, Preston); Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Marino, Cohen, Springer, Edwards); School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University - Portland State University, Portland, Oregon (Marino); Center for Health Systems Effectiveness, and Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Lindner, McConnell); Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey (Crabtree); Department of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania (Miller); Center for Community Health Integration, Departments of Family Medicine and Community Health, Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, and Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (Stange); HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Solberg); Section of General Internal Medicine, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon (Edwards)
| | - Miguel Marino
- Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, UTHealth School of Public Health in Dallas, Dallas, Texas (Balasubramanian, Ward, Preston); Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Marino, Cohen, Springer, Edwards); School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University - Portland State University, Portland, Oregon (Marino); Center for Health Systems Effectiveness, and Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Lindner, McConnell); Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey (Crabtree); Department of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania (Miller); Center for Community Health Integration, Departments of Family Medicine and Community Health, Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, and Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (Stange); HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Solberg); Section of General Internal Medicine, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon (Edwards)
| | - Deborah J Cohen
- Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, UTHealth School of Public Health in Dallas, Dallas, Texas (Balasubramanian, Ward, Preston); Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Marino, Cohen, Springer, Edwards); School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University - Portland State University, Portland, Oregon (Marino); Center for Health Systems Effectiveness, and Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Lindner, McConnell); Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey (Crabtree); Department of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania (Miller); Center for Community Health Integration, Departments of Family Medicine and Community Health, Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, and Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (Stange); HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Solberg); Section of General Internal Medicine, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon (Edwards)
| | - Rikki L Ward
- Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, UTHealth School of Public Health in Dallas, Dallas, Texas (Balasubramanian, Ward, Preston); Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Marino, Cohen, Springer, Edwards); School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University - Portland State University, Portland, Oregon (Marino); Center for Health Systems Effectiveness, and Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Lindner, McConnell); Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey (Crabtree); Department of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania (Miller); Center for Community Health Integration, Departments of Family Medicine and Community Health, Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, and Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (Stange); HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Solberg); Section of General Internal Medicine, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon (Edwards)
| | - Alex Preston
- Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, UTHealth School of Public Health in Dallas, Dallas, Texas (Balasubramanian, Ward, Preston); Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Marino, Cohen, Springer, Edwards); School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University - Portland State University, Portland, Oregon (Marino); Center for Health Systems Effectiveness, and Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Lindner, McConnell); Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey (Crabtree); Department of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania (Miller); Center for Community Health Integration, Departments of Family Medicine and Community Health, Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, and Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (Stange); HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Solberg); Section of General Internal Medicine, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon (Edwards)
| | - Rachel J Springer
- Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, UTHealth School of Public Health in Dallas, Dallas, Texas (Balasubramanian, Ward, Preston); Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Marino, Cohen, Springer, Edwards); School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University - Portland State University, Portland, Oregon (Marino); Center for Health Systems Effectiveness, and Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Lindner, McConnell); Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey (Crabtree); Department of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania (Miller); Center for Community Health Integration, Departments of Family Medicine and Community Health, Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, and Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (Stange); HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Solberg); Section of General Internal Medicine, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon (Edwards)
| | - Stephan R Lindner
- Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, UTHealth School of Public Health in Dallas, Dallas, Texas (Balasubramanian, Ward, Preston); Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Marino, Cohen, Springer, Edwards); School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University - Portland State University, Portland, Oregon (Marino); Center for Health Systems Effectiveness, and Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Lindner, McConnell); Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey (Crabtree); Department of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania (Miller); Center for Community Health Integration, Departments of Family Medicine and Community Health, Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, and Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (Stange); HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Solberg); Section of General Internal Medicine, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon (Edwards)
| | - Samuel Edwards
- Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, UTHealth School of Public Health in Dallas, Dallas, Texas (Balasubramanian, Ward, Preston); Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Marino, Cohen, Springer, Edwards); School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University - Portland State University, Portland, Oregon (Marino); Center for Health Systems Effectiveness, and Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Lindner, McConnell); Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey (Crabtree); Department of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania (Miller); Center for Community Health Integration, Departments of Family Medicine and Community Health, Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, and Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (Stange); HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Solberg); Section of General Internal Medicine, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon (Edwards)
| | - K John McConnell
- Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, UTHealth School of Public Health in Dallas, Dallas, Texas (Balasubramanian, Ward, Preston); Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Marino, Cohen, Springer, Edwards); School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University - Portland State University, Portland, Oregon (Marino); Center for Health Systems Effectiveness, and Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Lindner, McConnell); Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey (Crabtree); Department of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania (Miller); Center for Community Health Integration, Departments of Family Medicine and Community Health, Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, and Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (Stange); HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Solberg); Section of General Internal Medicine, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon (Edwards)
| | - Benjamin F Crabtree
- Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, UTHealth School of Public Health in Dallas, Dallas, Texas (Balasubramanian, Ward, Preston); Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Marino, Cohen, Springer, Edwards); School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University - Portland State University, Portland, Oregon (Marino); Center for Health Systems Effectiveness, and Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Lindner, McConnell); Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey (Crabtree); Department of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania (Miller); Center for Community Health Integration, Departments of Family Medicine and Community Health, Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, and Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (Stange); HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Solberg); Section of General Internal Medicine, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon (Edwards)
| | - William L Miller
- Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, UTHealth School of Public Health in Dallas, Dallas, Texas (Balasubramanian, Ward, Preston); Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Marino, Cohen, Springer, Edwards); School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University - Portland State University, Portland, Oregon (Marino); Center for Health Systems Effectiveness, and Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Lindner, McConnell); Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey (Crabtree); Department of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania (Miller); Center for Community Health Integration, Departments of Family Medicine and Community Health, Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, and Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (Stange); HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Solberg); Section of General Internal Medicine, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon (Edwards)
| | - Kurt C Stange
- Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, UTHealth School of Public Health in Dallas, Dallas, Texas (Balasubramanian, Ward, Preston); Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Marino, Cohen, Springer, Edwards); School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University - Portland State University, Portland, Oregon (Marino); Center for Health Systems Effectiveness, and Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Lindner, McConnell); Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey (Crabtree); Department of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania (Miller); Center for Community Health Integration, Departments of Family Medicine and Community Health, Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, and Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (Stange); HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Solberg); Section of General Internal Medicine, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon (Edwards)
| | - Leif I Solberg
- Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, UTHealth School of Public Health in Dallas, Dallas, Texas (Balasubramanian, Ward, Preston); Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Marino, Cohen, Springer, Edwards); School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University - Portland State University, Portland, Oregon (Marino); Center for Health Systems Effectiveness, and Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (Lindner, McConnell); Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey (Crabtree); Department of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania (Miller); Center for Community Health Integration, Departments of Family Medicine and Community Health, Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, and Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (Stange); HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Solberg); Section of General Internal Medicine, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon (Edwards)
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Bunger AC, Powell BJ, Robertson HA, MacDowell H, Birken SA, Shea C. Tracking implementation strategies: a description of a practical approach and early findings. Health Res Policy Syst 2017; 15:15. [PMID: 28231801 PMCID: PMC5324332 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-017-0175-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 81] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2016] [Accepted: 02/01/2017] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Published descriptions of implementation strategies often lack precision and consistency, limiting replicability and slowing accumulation of knowledge. Recent publication guidelines for implementation strategies call for improved description of the activities, dose, rationale and expected outcome(s) of strategies. However, capturing implementation strategies with this level of detail can be challenging, as responsibility for implementation is often diffuse and strategies may be flexibly applied as barriers and challenges emerge. We describe and demonstrate the development and application of a practical approach to identifying implementation strategies used in research and practice that could be used to guide their description and specification. METHODS An approach to tracking implementation strategies using activity logs completed by project personnel was developed to facilitate identification of discrete strategies. This approach was piloted in the context of a multi-component project to improve children's access to behavioural health services in a county-based child welfare agency. Key project personnel completed monthly activity logs that gathered data on strategies used over 17 months. Logs collected information about implementation activities, intent, duration and individuals involved. Using a consensus approach, two sets of coders categorised each activity based upon Powell et al.'s (Med Care Res Rev 69:123-57, 2012) taxonomy of implementation strategies. RESULTS Participants reported on 473 activities, which represent 45 unique strategies. Initial implementation was characterised by planning strategies followed by educational strategies. After project launch, quality management strategies predominated, suggesting a progression of implementation over time. Together, these strategies accounted for 1594 person-hours, many of which were reported by the leadership team that was responsible for project design, implementation and oversight. CONCLUSIONS This approach allows for identifying discrete implementation strategies used over time, estimating dose, describing temporal ordering of implementation strategies, and pinpointing the major implementation actors. This detail could facilitate clear reporting of a full range of implementation strategies, including those that may be less observable. This approach could lead to a more nuanced understanding of what it takes to implement different innovations, the types of strategies that are most useful during specific phases of implementation, and how implementation strategies need to be adaptively applied throughout the course of a given initiative.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alicia C. Bunger
- College of Social Work, The Ohio State University, 1947 College Road, Columbus, OH 43210 United States of America
| | - Byron J. Powell
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1105C McGavran-Greenberg Hall, Campus Box 7411, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 United States of America
| | - Hillary A. Robertson
- Georgetown University Center for Child and Human Development, Department of Pediatrics, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 3300, Washington, DC 20007 United States of America
| | - Hannah MacDowell
- College of Social Work, The Ohio State University, 1947 College Road, Columbus, OH 43210 United States of America
| | - Sarah A. Birken
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1105C McGavran-Greenberg Hall, Campus Box 7411, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 United States of America
| | - Christopher Shea
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1105C McGavran-Greenberg Hall, Campus Box 7411, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Tracking implementation strategies: a description of a practical approach and early findings. Health Res Policy Syst 2017. [PMID: 28231801 DOI: 10.1186/s12961‐017‐0175‐y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Published descriptions of implementation strategies often lack precision and consistency, limiting replicability and slowing accumulation of knowledge. Recent publication guidelines for implementation strategies call for improved description of the activities, dose, rationale and expected outcome(s) of strategies. However, capturing implementation strategies with this level of detail can be challenging, as responsibility for implementation is often diffuse and strategies may be flexibly applied as barriers and challenges emerge. We describe and demonstrate the development and application of a practical approach to identifying implementation strategies used in research and practice that could be used to guide their description and specification. METHODS An approach to tracking implementation strategies using activity logs completed by project personnel was developed to facilitate identification of discrete strategies. This approach was piloted in the context of a multi-component project to improve children's access to behavioural health services in a county-based child welfare agency. Key project personnel completed monthly activity logs that gathered data on strategies used over 17 months. Logs collected information about implementation activities, intent, duration and individuals involved. Using a consensus approach, two sets of coders categorised each activity based upon Powell et al.'s (Med Care Res Rev 69:123-57, 2012) taxonomy of implementation strategies. RESULTS Participants reported on 473 activities, which represent 45 unique strategies. Initial implementation was characterised by planning strategies followed by educational strategies. After project launch, quality management strategies predominated, suggesting a progression of implementation over time. Together, these strategies accounted for 1594 person-hours, many of which were reported by the leadership team that was responsible for project design, implementation and oversight. CONCLUSIONS This approach allows for identifying discrete implementation strategies used over time, estimating dose, describing temporal ordering of implementation strategies, and pinpointing the major implementation actors. This detail could facilitate clear reporting of a full range of implementation strategies, including those that may be less observable. This approach could lead to a more nuanced understanding of what it takes to implement different innovations, the types of strategies that are most useful during specific phases of implementation, and how implementation strategies need to be adaptively applied throughout the course of a given initiative.
Collapse
|