Implementation of the Standards for adult immunization practice: A survey of U.S. Health care providers

Factors that influence the implementation of (inter)nationally endorsed health and social care standards: a systematic review and meta-summary

BACKGROUND

Health and social care standards have been widely adopted as a quality improvement intervention. Standards are typically made up of evidence-based statements that describe safe, high-quality, person-centred care as an outcome or process of care delivery. They involve stakeholders at multiple levels and multiple activities across diverse services. As such, challenges exist with their implementation. Existing literature relating to standards has focused on accreditation and regulation programmes and there is limited evidence to inform implementation strategies specifically tailored to support the implementation of standards. This systematic review aimed to identify and describe the most frequently reported enablers and barriers to implementing (inter)nationally endorsed standards, in order to inform the selection of strategies that can optimise their implementation.

METHODS

Database searches were conducted in Medline, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), SocINDEX, Google Scholar, OpenGrey and GreyNet International, complemented by manual searches of standard-setting bodies' websites and hand searching references of included studies. Primary qualitative, quantitative descriptive and mixed methods studies that reported enablers and barriers to implementing nationally or internationally endorsed standards were included. Two researchers independently screened search outcomes and conducted data extraction, methodological appraisal and CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) assessments. An inductive analysis was conducted using Sandelowski's meta-summary and measured frequency effect sizes (FES) for enablers and barriers.

RESULTS

4072 papers were retrieved initially with 35 studies ultimately included. Twenty-two thematic statements describing enablers were created from 322 descriptive findings and grouped under six themes. Twenty-four thematic statements describing barriers were created from 376 descriptive findings and grouped under six themes. The most prevalent enablers with CERQual assessments graded as high included: available support tools at local level (FES 55%); training courses to increase awareness and knowledge of the standards (FES 52%) and knowledge sharing and interprofessional collaborations (FES 45%). The most prevalent barriers with CERQual assessments graded as high included: a lack of knowledge of what standards are (FES 63%), staffing constraints (FES 46%), insufficient funds (FES 43%).

CONCLUSIONS

The most frequently reported enablers related to available support tools, education and shared learning. The most frequently reported barriers related to a lack of knowledge of standards, staffing issues and insufficient funds. Incorporating these findings into the selection of implementation strategies will enhance the likelihood of effective implementation of standards and subsequently, improve safe, quality care for people using health and social care services.

Challenges of vaccination information system implementation: A systematic literature review

Globally, healthcare services have begun to show interest in switching from paper-based to electronic-based vaccination records through Vaccination Information Systems (VIS). VIS have been implemented in various countries, but the study on the challenges of implementing VIS in these countries is still limited. The challenges of implementing VIS need to be understood to become a subject of discussion and anticipation by other countries that are just starting to implement VIS. We analyzed 32 selected publications from 634 initially retrieved. Fourteen challenges were successfully identified when implementing VIS, including interoperability, data quality, security and privacy, standardization, usability, internet connectivity, infrastructure, workflow, funding, government regulations, awareness, skeptical response, computer literacy, and staff-related challenges. The challenges of interoperability and data quality were found to be the most widely discussed by previous studies. In addition to identifying the challenges, this study includes a series of solutions that can be applied to overcome each challenge.

Uptake of HPV Vaccine among young adults with disabilities, 2011 to 2018

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake among young adults with disabilities (YAWD), despite this population having a higher risk of HPV infection and related cancers compared to the general population.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the prevalence of HPV vaccination among young adults with disabilities to young adults without disabilities. We hypothesized that YAWD would have a lower prevalence of HPV vaccination than the general population.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used data for the years 2011 to 2018 of the National Health Interview Survey. Our analysis included 14,577 people (weighted n = 34,420,024) aged 18 to 26 years. Univariate and multivariable logistic models were used to estimate the role of disability on HPV vaccination uptake among young adults and to identify potential factors associated with HPV vaccination among YAWD.

RESULTS

The proportion of female and male YAWD with HPV vaccination was similar to those without disabilities, regardless of sex (Female Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR): 1.16; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.91 to 1.48; Male Adjusted OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.60). Among female and male YAWD, the proportion with HPV vaccination was 56.1% and 28.5%, respectively. Other factors significantly associated with HPV vaccination among YAWD included age, country of birth, healthcare utilization, and insurance status.

CONCLUSIONS

HPV vaccination among YAWD did not differ significantly from those without disabilities; however, the prevalence of HPV vaccination among young adult males and females remains significantly below national goals. Connecting young adults, specifically male YAWD, to the healthcare system is of utmost importance to improve HPV vaccination uptake.

The effectiveness of champions in implementing innovations in health care: a systematic review

Background

Champions have been documented in the literature as an important strategy for implementation, yet their effectiveness has not been well synthesized in the health care literature. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether champions, tested in isolation from other implementation strategies, are effective at improving innovation use or outcomes in health care.

Methods

The JBI systematic review method guided this study. A peer-reviewed search strategy was applied to eight electronic databases to identify relevant articles. We included all published articles and unpublished theses and dissertations that used a quantitative study design to evaluate the effectiveness of champions in implementing innovations within health care settings. Two researchers independently completed study selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal. We used content analysis and vote counting to synthesize our data.

Results

After screening 7566 records titles and abstracts and 2090 full text articles, we included 35 studies in our review. Most of the studies (71.4%) operationalized the champion strategy by the presence or absence of a champion. In a subset of seven studies, five studies found associations between exposure to champions and increased use of best practices, programs, or technological innovations at an organizational level. In other subsets, the evidence pertaining to use of champions and innovation use by patients or providers, or at improving outcomes was either mixed or scarce.

Conclusions

We identified a small body of literature reporting an association between use of champions and increased instrumental use of innovations by organizations. However, more research is needed to determine causal relationship between champions and innovation use and outcomes. Even though there are no reported adverse effects in using champions, opportunity costs may be associated with their use. Until more evidence becomes available about the effectiveness of champions at increasing innovation use and outcomes, the decision to deploy champions should consider the needs and resources of the organization and include an evaluation plan. To further our understanding of champions’ effectiveness, future studies should (1) use experimental study designs in conjunction with process evaluations, (2) describe champions and their activities and (3) rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of champions’ activities.

Registration

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ba3d2). Registered on November 15, 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-022-00315-0.