Implementation science protocol for a participatory, theory-informed implementation research programme in the context of health system strengthening in sub-Saharan Africa (ASSET-ImplementER)

Sustaining the collaborative chronic care model in outpatient mental health: a matrixed multiple case study

BACKGROUND

Sustaining evidence-based practices (EBPs) is crucial to ensuring care quality and addressing health disparities. Approaches to identifying factors related to sustainability are critically needed. One such approach is Matrixed Multiple Case Study (MMCS), which identifies factors and their combinations that influence implementation. We applied MMCS to identify factors related to the sustainability of the evidence-based Collaborative Chronic Care Model (CCM) at nine Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient mental health clinics, 3-4 years after implementation support had concluded.

METHODS

We conducted a directed content analysis of 30 provider interviews, using 6 CCM elements and 4 Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) domains as codes. Based on CCM code summaries, we designated each site as high/medium/low sustainability. We used i-PARIHS code summaries to identify relevant factors for each site, the extent of their presence, and the type of influence they had on sustainability (enabling/neutral/hindering/unclear). We organized these data into a sortable matrix and assessed sustainability-related cross-site trends.

RESULTS

CCM sustainability status was distributed among the sites, with three sites each being high, medium, and low. Twenty-five factors were identified from the i-PARIHS code summaries, of which 3 exhibited strong trends by sustainability status (relevant i-PARIHS domain in square brackets): "Collaborativeness/Teamwork [Recipients]," "Staff/Leadership turnover [Recipients]," and "Having a consistent/strong internal facilitator [Facilitation]" during and after active implementation. At most high-sustainability sites only, (i) "Having a knowledgeable/helpful external facilitator [Facilitation]" was variably present and enabled sustainability when present, while (ii) "Clarity about what CCM comprises [Innovation]," "Interdisciplinary coordination [Recipients]," and "Adequate clinic space for CCM team members [Context]" were somewhat or less present with mixed influences on sustainability.

CONCLUSIONS

MMCS revealed that CCM sustainability in VA outpatient mental health clinics may be related most strongly to provider collaboration, knowledge retention during staff/leadership transitions, and availability of skilled internal facilitators. These findings have informed a subsequent CCM implementation trial that prospectively examines whether enhancing the above-mentioned factors within implementation facilitation improves sustainability. MMCS is a systematic approach to multi-site examination that can be used to investigate sustainability-related factors applicable to other EBPs and across multiple contexts.

Mobilising context as complex and dynamic in evaluations of complex health interventions

BACKGROUND

The relationship between healthcare interventions and context is widely conceived as involving complex and dynamic interactions over time. However, evaluations of complex health interventions frequently fail to mobilise such complexity, reporting context and interventions as reified and demarcated categories. This raises questions about practices shaping knowledge about context, with implications for who and what we make visible in our research. Viewed through the lens of case study research, we draw on data collected for the Triple C study (focused on Case study, Context and Complex interventions), to critique these practices, and call for system-wide changes in how notions of context are operationalised in evaluations of complex health interventions.

METHODS

The Triple C study was funded by the Medical Research Council to develop case study guidance and reporting principles taking account of context and complexity. As part of this study, a one-day workshop with 58 participants and nine interviews were conducted with those involved in researching, evaluating, publishing, funding and developing policy and practice from case study research. Discussions focused on how to conceptualise and operationalise context within case study evaluations of complex health interventions. Analysis focused on different constructions and connections of context in relation to complex interventions and the wider social forces structuring participant's accounts.

RESULTS

We found knowledge-making practices about context shaped by epistemic and political forces, manifesting as: tensions between articulating complexity and clarity of description; ontological (in)coherence between conceptualisations of context and methods used; and reified versions of context being privileged when communicating with funders, journals, policymakers and publics.

CONCLUSION

We argue that evaluations of complex health interventions urgently requires wide-scale critical reflection on how context is mobilised - by funders, health services researchers, journal editors and policymakers. Connecting with how scholars approach complexity and context across disciplines provides opportunities for creatively expanding the field in which health evaluations are conducted, enabling a critical standpoint to long-established traditions and opening up possibilities for innovating the design of evaluations of complex health interventions.

Impact of COVID-19 primary healthcare service restrictions on patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Cape Town, South Africa

Background. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) typically experience multidimensional symptoms throughout the course of their disease, with burdensome physical symptoms, social isolation, and additional psychological suffering. COVID-19 lockdown resulted in restrictions on chronic care delivery at primary healthcare (PHC) facilities, and it is not known what the care experiences of patients with COPD were during this time.Objectives. To describe patient experiences of the impact of the lockdown on their needs and their experiences of the primary care received for their COPD.Methods. The data reported in this paper are from a cohort of 49 patients with COPD receiving primary care, recruited in February and March 2020, before recruitment was paused for COVID-19 lockdown, for a feasibility stepped-wedge hybrid type II design randomised controlled trial of integrated person-centred palliative care in primary care for patients with COPD in Cape Town, South Africa. Data are open-text responses from participants who responded to a single question on a validated measure of primary care consultation empathy (CARE), and describe patient experiences of the impact of the lockdown on the primary care received for their COPD, prior to crossover to trial intervention.Results. Thirty-two patients with COPD gave between 1 and 9 responses each to the open-ended question between March and December 2020. The average age of the participants was 58.6 years, and 53.1% (n=17) were female. Inductive analysis of the open-text data identified four main themes. Participants described decreased access to chronic care and a desire for more person-centred care in interactions with healthcare professionals. The socioeconomic ramifications of the COVID-19 lockdown added to the burden they experienced.Conclusion. The COVID-19 lockdown PHC service restrictions caused a disruption to the continuity of care for patients with COPD, with associated worry, anxiety and disappointment. Medication access was largely supported by the home delivery of chronic medication. We suggest that there are opportunities for providing more sustained support for patients with COPD through referrals to community health workers, and also through telephonic patient follow-up by primary care teams

Challenges in Implementing the National Health Response to COVID-19 in Senegal

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in Africa, many epidemiological or anthropological studies have been published. However, few studies have yet been conducted to understand the implementation of State interventions to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. In Senegal, the national response plan was planned before the country experienced its first official case of COVID-19 on 2 March 2020. This qualitative study, conducted in March and April 2021, based on 189 interviews, aims to understand how the national response has been implemented in several regions of Senegal. Implementation of the response to the pandemic was favoured by good preparation, capacity to adapt, responsiveness of health actors, and commitment for both the political and religious authorities. The implementation response was confronted by several constraining factors such as the coercive approach, the challenges of coordinating actors, and the lack of intersectoral response. The central level has sometimes used reflexivity processes to adapt its response, but it has remained highly politicized, centralized, directive, and with little involvement of civil society. In Senegal, the response to the pandemic has been implemented in a relatively political and directive, even coercive manner, without necessarily considering prior knowledge and the need to adapt it to local contexts and to involve civil society and community actors in the process.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-022-00053-4.

Health systems strengthening interventions for perinatal common mental disorders and experiences of domestic violence in Cape Town, South Africa: protocol for a pilot implementation study

BACKGROUND

During the perinatal period, common mental disorders (CMDs) such as depression and anxiety are highly prevalent, especially in low-resource settings, and are associated with domestic violence, poverty, and food insecurity. Perinatal CMDs have been associated with several adverse maternal and child outcomes. While the Department of Health in South Africa provides healthcare workers with the tools to detect psychological distress and experiences of domestic violence, few healthcare workers routinely screen pregnant women at clinic visits, citing discomfort with mental health issues and the lack of standardised referral pathways as the key barriers. The aim of this study is to select and evaluate a set of health systems strengthening (HSS) interventions aimed at improving the care and outcomes for perinatal women with CMDs and experiences of domestic violence, attending public healthcare facilities in Cape Town.

METHODS

This study consists of a pre-implementation, development, and implementation phase. Contextual barriers identified during the pre-implementation phase included poor patient knowledge and health-seeking behaviour, high levels of stigma, and poor detection, referral, and treatment rates. Implementation science determinant frameworks were applied to findings from the pre-implementation phase to identify determinants and gaps in delivering high-quality evidence-informed care. A participatory Theory of Change workshop was used to design a HSS programme, consisting of awareness raising, detection, referral, and treatment. HSS interventions selected to support the delivery of the HSS programme includes training, health promotion, change to the healthcare environment, task-sharing, audit and feedback, and performance monitoring. The implementation phase will be used to assess several implementation and clinical outcomes associated with the delivery of the HSS programme, which will be piloted at three healthcare facilities. Qualitative and quantitative methods will be used to evaluate the implementation and clinical outcomes.

DISCUSSION

This pilot implementation study will inform us about a range of implementation and clinical outcome measures that are relevant for assessing HSS interventions for perinatal women with depression, anxiety, or experiences of domestic violence in low-resource settings. Lessons learnt from the pilot study will be incorporated into the design of a cluster randomised control trial for which further funding will be sought.

A guide to systems-level, participatory, theory-informed implementation research in global health

Implementation research is a multidisciplinary field that addresses the complex phenomenon of how context influences our ability to deliver evidence-informed healthcare. There is increasing realisation of the importance of applying robust implementation research to scale-up life-saving interventions that meet health-related sustainable development goals. However, the lack of high-quality implementation research is impeding our ability to meet these targets, globally. Within implementation research, theory refers to the proposed hypothesis and/or explanation of how an intervention is expected to interact with the local context and actors to bring about change. Although there is increasing interest in applying theory to understand how and why implementation programmes work in real-world settings, global health actors still tend to favour impact evaluations conducted in controlled environments. This may, in part, be due to the relative novelty as well as methodological complexity of implementation research and the need to draw on divergent disciplines, including epidemiology, implementation science and social sciences. Because of this, implementation research is faced with a particular set of challenges about how to reconcile different ways of thinking and constructing knowledge about healthcare interventions. To help translate some of the ambiguity surrounding how divergent theoretical approaches and methods contribute to implementation research, we draw on our multidisciplinary expertise in the field, particularly in global health. We offer an overview of the different theoretical approaches and describe how they are applied to continuously select, monitor and evaluate implementation strategies throughout the different phases of implementation research. In doing so, we offer a relatively brief, user-focused guide to help global health actors implement and report on evaluation of evidence-based and scalable interventions, programmes and practices.

Pills and prayers: a comparative qualitative study of community conceptualisations of pre-eclampsia and pluralistic care in Ethiopia, Haiti and Zimbabwe

BACKGROUND

Pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of preventable maternal and perinatal deaths globally. While health inequities remain stark, removing financial or structural barriers to care does not necessarily improve uptake of life-saving treatment. Building on existing literature elaborating the sociocultural contexts that shape behaviours around pregnancy and childbirth can identify nuanced influences relating to pre-eclampsia care.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-cultural comparative study exploring lived experiences and understanding of pre-eclampsia in Ethiopia, Haiti and Zimbabwe. Our primary objective was to examine what local understandings of pre-eclampsia might be shared between these three under-resourced settings despite their considerable sociocultural differences. Between August 2018 and January 2020, we conducted 89 in-depth interviews with individuals and 17 focus group discussions (n = 106). We purposively sampled perinatal women, survivors of pre-eclampsia, families of deceased women, partners, older male and female decision-makers, traditional birth attendants, religious and traditional healers, community health workers and facility-based health professionals. Template analysis was conducted to facilitate cross-country comparison drawing on Social Learning Theory and the Health Belief Model.

RESULTS

Survivors of pre-eclampsia spoke of their uncertainty regarding symptoms and diagnosis. A lack of shared language challenged coherence in interpretations of illness related to pre-eclampsia. Across settings, raised blood pressure in pregnancy was often attributed to psychosocial distress and dietary factors, and eclampsia linked to spiritual manifestations. Pluralistic care was driven by attribution of causes, social norms and expectations relating to alternative care and trust in biomedicine across all three settings. Divergence across the contexts centred around nuances in religious or traditional practices relating to maternal health and pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Engaging faith and traditional caregivers and the wider community offers opportunities to move towards coherent conceptualisations of pre-eclampsia, and hence greater access to potentially life-saving care.