1
|
Baumann AA, Adams DR, Baldwin LM, Tabak RG, Malone S, Kepper MM, Misra-Hebert AD, Stevens KR, Fernandez ME, Kripalani S. A mapping review and critique of the literature on translation, dissemination, and implementation capacity building initiatives for different audiences. Implement Sci Commun 2025; 6:34. [PMID: 40181484 PMCID: PMC11970029 DOI: 10.1186/s43058-025-00717-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2024] [Accepted: 03/16/2025] [Indexed: 04/05/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Capacity building is critical for research and practice as the fields of dissemination, implementation and translation science continue to grow. Some scholars state that capacity building should be grounded in competencies. However, the fields are unclear in determining which competencies are relevant for whom, including the content and appropriate level of information and skills for different roles. The goal of this study was to catalogue competencies across current D&I capacity building initiatives. METHODS We conducted a mapping review to examine to what extent are theories or frameworks used to guide capacity building, who is being trained, to what extent do capacity building initiatives include a health equity focus, which competencies are being outlined or suggested, how are they being defined, and whether the competencies can be organized along different roles of participants. As a mapping review, we broadly searched for papers using the keywords "training D&I" OR "training implementation" OR "training translation" OR "training dissemination" and included debate and empirical papers about capacity building initiatives in the sample. RESULTS A total of 42 articles (from 2011 to 2024) were reviewed, including training development and/or evaluation (n = 25) and conceptual (n = 17) articles. Of the training articles, 13 (52%) specified a framework that guided training. Participants in training included graduate students, researchers, practitioners, and mixed audiences. Fourteen (56%) of the trainings were conducted in the USA, seven (28%) in Canada and other countries. The length of training ranged from two days to two years. Four trainings had an explicit focus on equity. A total of 307 unique competencies were identified and divided into themes: Knowledge, Skills, Engagement with Other Disciplines, Equity, Attitude and Relational Aspects, Capacity Building, Quality Improvement, and Mentorship. CONCLUSIONS While there are many D&I capacity building initiatives, we found little consistency in competencies that guided training activities for diverse audiences. Few training activities explicitly identified guiding theories or frameworks or tailored competencies toward different levels of interest in D&I research. Even fewer had an explicit focus on health equity. As the fields continue to foster capacity building programs, it will be important to think critically about the types of competencies we are developing for whom, how, and why.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ana A Baumann
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
| | - Danielle R Adams
- School of Social Work, College of Health Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
| | - Laura-Mae Baldwin
- Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Rachel G Tabak
- School of Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Sara Malone
- School of Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Maura M Kepper
- School of Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Anita D Misra-Hebert
- Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Kathleen R Stevens
- University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA
| | - Maria E Fernandez
- Institute for Implementation Science, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Yakovchenko V, Merante M, Chinman MJ, Neely B, Lamorte C, Gibson S, Kirchner J, Morgan TR, Rogal SS. The "good enough" facilitator: elucidating the role of working alliance in the mechanism of facilitation. Implement Sci Commun 2025; 6:22. [PMID: 40001234 PMCID: PMC11863522 DOI: 10.1186/s43058-025-00705-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2024] [Accepted: 02/11/2025] [Indexed: 02/27/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND While facilitation is a widely used implementation strategy with proven effectiveness, the development of the facilitator-recipient relationship, i.e., working alliance, has received limited attention. However, we hypothesize that working alliance may be part of the mechanism by which facilitation activates change. This study aimed to examine the associations between working alliance, facilitation, and change in clinical care in a hybrid type 3 trial of a manualized intervention, Getting to Implementation (GTI). METHODS This concurrent triangulation mixed-methods study was conducted at 12 sites in a stepped-wedge trial. We collected surveys using the Working Alliance Inventory-Short instrument (WAI), which includes three subscales of goal alignment, task alignment, and affective bond, from three respondent types (clinical facilitator, evaluation facilitator, and site team members) after a year of intervention. Facilitation activity type and dose were tracked. Summative qualitative interviews with site champions and facilitators) elicited perceptions on working alliance, facilitation, and experiences with the intervention, and results were triangulated with statistical bivariate analyses. The associations between WAI and facilitation time, fidelity, and change in liver cancer screening rate (the primary trial outcome) were assessed. RESULTS Across 12 sites, facilitators and site team members completed 21 interviews and 40 WAI surveys, with site aggregate average working alliance scores of 5.9 ± 0.4 on a seven-point scale. Bond scores were highest (6.1 ± 0.5), followed by Goal (6.0 ± 0.4) and Task (5.8 ± 0.5) scores. Overall and subscale scores differed by respondent type, with site respondents consistently rating items higher than facilitators, particularly in Task items. Fidelity to the GTI process (e.g., timely completion of steps and tools) was significantly positively associated with WAI scores overall (r = 0.41, p = 0.007) and subscale scores, including Goal (r = 0.39, p = 0.011), Task (r = 0.42, p = 0.006), and Bond (r = 0.33, p = 0.039). WAI scores were not correlated with facilitation time (dose). WAI scores overall and the Bond and Goal scores were significantly positively associated with sustained improvement in cancer screening rates (r = 0.57, p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS In this implementation trial, working alliance between site teams and facilitators was positively associated with both fidelity and cancer screening outcomes and was notably independent of time spent providing facilitation. Findings highlight the importance of working alliance in implementation studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION This project was registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov ( NCT04178096 ) on 4/29/20.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vera Yakovchenko
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Building 30 Room 2A113, University Drive (151C), Pittsburgh, PA, 15240, USA
| | - Monica Merante
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Building 30 Room 2A113, University Drive (151C), Pittsburgh, PA, 15240, USA
| | - Matthew J Chinman
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Building 30 Room 2A113, University Drive (151C), Pittsburgh, PA, 15240, USA
- RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Brittney Neely
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Building 30 Room 2A113, University Drive (151C), Pittsburgh, PA, 15240, USA
| | - Carolyn Lamorte
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Building 30 Room 2A113, University Drive (151C), Pittsburgh, PA, 15240, USA
| | - Sandra Gibson
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Building 30 Room 2A113, University Drive (151C), Pittsburgh, PA, 15240, USA
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - JoAnn Kirchner
- VA Behavioral Health Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), Central, Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, AR, North Little Rockaq, USA
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA
| | - Timothy R Morgan
- VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, CA, USA
- Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
- Department of Veterans Affairs, National Gastroenterology and Hepatology Program, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Shari S Rogal
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Building 30 Room 2A113, University Drive (151C), Pittsburgh, PA, 15240, USA.
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
- Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Brahmania M, Kuo A, Tapper EB, Volk ML, Vittorio JM, Ghabril M, Morgan TR, Kanwal F, Parikh ND, Martin P, Mehta S, Winder GS, Im GY, Goldberg D, Lai JC, Duarte-Rojo A, Paredes AH, Patel AA, Sahota A, McElroy LM, Thomas C, Wall AE, Malinis M, Aslam S, Simonetto DA, Ufere NN, Ramakrishnan S, Flynn MM, Ibrahim Y, Asrani SK, Serper M. Quality measures in pre-liver transplant care by the Practice Metrics Committee of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 2024; 80:742-753. [PMID: 38536021 DOI: 10.1097/hep.0000000000000870] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2024] [Accepted: 03/11/2024] [Indexed: 05/19/2024]
Abstract
The liver transplantation (LT) evaluation and waitlisting process is subject to variations in care that can impede quality. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) developed quality measures and patient-reported experience measures along the continuum of pre-LT care to reduce care variation and guide patient-centered care. Following a systematic literature review, candidate pre-LT measures were grouped into 4 phases of care: referral, evaluation and waitlisting, waitlist management, and organ acceptance. A modified Delphi panel with content expertise in hepatology, transplant surgery, psychiatry, transplant infectious disease, palliative care, and social work selected the final set. Candidate patient-reported experience measures spanned domains of cognitive health, emotional health, social well-being, and understanding the LT process. Of the 71 candidate measures, 41 were selected: 9 for referral; 20 for evaluation and waitlisting; 7 for waitlist management; and 5 for organ acceptance. A total of 14 were related to structure, 17 were process measures, and 10 were outcome measures that focused on elements not typically measured in routine care. Among the patient-reported experience measures, candidates of LT rated items from understanding the LT process domain as the most important. The proposed pre-LT measures provide a framework for quality improvement and care standardization among candidates of LT. Select measures apply to various stakeholders such as referring practitioners in the community and LT centers. Clinically meaningful measures that are distinct from those used for regulatory transplant reporting may facilitate local quality improvement initiatives to improve access and quality of care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mayur Brahmania
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Alexander Kuo
- Karsh Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Comprehensive Transplant Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Elliot B Tapper
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Michael L Volk
- Department of Medicine, Baylor Scott and White Health, Temple, Texas, USA
| | - Jennifer M Vittorio
- Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, New York University (NYU) Langone Health, New York, New York, USA
| | - Marwan Ghabril
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Timothy R Morgan
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, California, USA
- Medical Service, VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, California, USA
| | - Fasiha Kanwal
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Neehar D Parikh
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Paul Martin
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA
| | - Shivang Mehta
- Department of Medicine, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | | | - Gene Y Im
- Division of Liver Diseases, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
| | - David Goldberg
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA
| | - Jennifer C Lai
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Andres Duarte-Rojo
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Angelo H Paredes
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA
| | - Arpan A Patel
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
- Department of Medicine, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Amandeep Sahota
- Department of Transplant Hepatology, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Lisa M McElroy
- Department of Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Charlie Thomas
- Banner University Medical Center Phoenix Transplant Program, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Anji E Wall
- Department of Surgery, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Maricar Malinis
- Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Saima Aslam
- Division of Infectious Diseases and Global Public Health, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA
| | - Douglas A Simonetto
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Nneka N Ufere
- Department of Medicine, Gastrointestinal Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | | | - Mary Margaret Flynn
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | | | - Sumeet K Asrani
- Department of Medicine, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Marina Serper
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
McCurdy H, Nobbe A, Scott D, Patton H, Morgan TR, Bajaj JS, Yakovchenko V, Merante M, Gibson S, Lamorte C, Baffy G, Ioannou GN, Taddei TH, Rozenberg-Ben-Dror K, Anwar J, Dominitz JA, Rogal SS. Organizational and Implementation Factors Associated with Cirrhosis Care in the Veterans Health Administration. Dig Dis Sci 2024; 69:2008-2017. [PMID: 38616215 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-024-08409-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2023] [Accepted: 03/25/2024] [Indexed: 04/16/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Veterans Health Administration provides care to more than 100,000 Veterans with cirrhosis. AIMS This implementation evaluation aimed to understand organizational resources and barriers associated with cirrhosis care. METHODS Clinicians across 145 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs) were surveyed in 2022 about implementing guideline-concordant cirrhosis care. VA Corporate Data Warehouse data were used to assess VAMC performance on two national cirrhosis quality measures: HCC surveillance and esophageal variceal surveillance or treatment (EVST). Organizational factors associated with higher performance were identified using linear regression models. RESULTS Responding VAMCs (n = 124, 86%) ranged in resource availability, perceived barriers, and care processes. In multivariable models, factors independently associated with HCC surveillance included on-site interventional radiology and identifying patients overdue for surveillance using a national cirrhosis population management tool ("dashboard"). EVST was significantly associated with dashboard use and on-site gastroenterology services. For larger VAMCs, the average HCC surveillance rate was similar between VAMCs using vs. not using the dashboard (47% vs. 41%), while for smaller and less resourced VAMCs, dashboard use resulted in a 13% rate difference (46% vs. 33%). Likewise, higher EVST rates were more strongly associated with dashboard use in smaller (55% vs. 50%) compared to larger (57% vs. 55%) VAMCs. CONCLUSIONS Resources, barriers, and care processes varied across diverse VAMCs. Smaller VAMCs without specialty care achieved HCC and EVST surveillance rates nearly as high as more complex and resourced VAMCs if they used a population management tool to identify the patients due for cirrhosis care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heather McCurdy
- Gastroenterology Section, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Anna Nobbe
- Digestive Diseases Section, Cincinnati VA Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA
| | - Dawn Scott
- VA Central Texas Healthcare System, Temple, TX, USA
| | - Heather Patton
- VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, USA
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Timothy R Morgan
- VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, CA, USA
- Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
- National Gastroenterology and Hepatology Program, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Jasmohan S Bajaj
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Central Virginia VA Health Care System, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Vera Yakovchenko
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Monica Merante
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Sandra Gibson
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Carolyn Lamorte
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Gyorgy Baffy
- Section of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - George N Ioannou
- VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA
- University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Tamar H Taddei
- VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA
- Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
| | | | - Jennifer Anwar
- VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, CA, USA
- National Gastroenterology and Hepatology Program, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Jason A Dominitz
- National Gastroenterology and Hepatology Program, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA
- VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA
- University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Shari S Rogal
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
- Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Building 30 Room 2A113, University Drive (151C), Pittsburgh, PA, 15240, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Kilbourne A, Chinman M, Rogal S, Almirall D. Adaptive Designs in Implementation Science and Practice: Their Promise and the Need for Greater Understanding and Improved Communication. Annu Rev Public Health 2024; 45:69-88. [PMID: 37931183 PMCID: PMC11070446 DOI: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-060222-014438] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2023]
Abstract
The promise of adaptation and adaptive designs in implementation science has been hindered by the lack of clarity and precision in defining what it means to adapt, especially regarding the distinction between adaptive study designs and adaptive implementation strategies. To ensure a common language for science and practice, authors reviewed the implementation science literature and found that the term adaptive was used to describe interventions, implementation strategies, and trial designs. To provide clarity and offer recommendations for reporting and strengthening study design, we propose a taxonomy that describes fixed versus adaptive implementation strategies and implementation trial designs. To improve impact, (a) futureimplementation studies should prespecify implementation strategy core functions that in turn can be taught to and replicated by health system/community partners, (b) funders should support exploratory studies that refine and specify implementation strategies, and (c) investigators should systematically address design requirements and ethical considerations (e.g., randomization, blinding/masking) with health system/community partners.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy Kilbourne
- Quality Enhancement Research Initiative, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
- Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA;
| | - Matthew Chinman
- RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
- Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Shari Rogal
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
- Departments of Medicine and Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Daniel Almirall
- Institute for Social Research and Department of Statistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Rogal SS, Taddei TH, Monto A, Yakovchenko V, Patton H, Merante M, Spoutz P, Chia L, Yudkevich J, Aytaman A, Rabiee A, John BV, Blechacz B, Cai CX, Gilles H, Shah AS, McCurdy H, Puri P, Jou J, Mazhar K, Dominitz JA, Anwar J, Morgan TR, Ioannou GN. Hepatocellular Carcinoma Diagnosis and Management in 2021: A National Veterans Affairs Quality Improvement Project. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024; 22:324-338. [PMID: 37460005 PMCID: PMC10788380 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.07.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2023] [Revised: 06/16/2023] [Accepted: 07/02/2023] [Indexed: 08/13/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS The coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic profoundly disrupted preventative health care services including cancer screening. As the largest provider of cirrhosis care in the United States, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Gastroenterology and Hepatology Program aimed to assess factors associated with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) stage at diagnosis, treatment, and survival. METHODS Veterans with a new diagnosis of HCC in 2021 were identified from electronic health records (N = 2306). Structured medical record extraction was performed by expert reviewers in a 10% random subsample of Veterans with new HCC diagnoses. Factors associated with stage at diagnosis, receipt of treatment, and survival were assessed using multivariable models. RESULTS Among 199 patients with confirmed HCC, the average age was 71 years and most (72%) had underlying cirrhosis. More than half (54%) were at an early stage (T1 or T2) at diagnosis. Less-advanced liver disease, number of imaging tests adequate for HCC screening, HCC diagnosis in the VA, and receipt of VA primary care were associated significantly with early stage diagnosis. HCC-directed treatments were administered to 145 (73%) patients after a median of 37 days (interquartile range, 19-54 d) from diagnosis, including 70 (35%) patients who received potentially curative treatments. Factors associated with potentially curative (vs no) treatments included HCC screening, early stage at diagnosis, and better performance status. Having fewer comorbidities and better performance status were associated significantly with noncurative (vs no) treatment. Early stage diagnosis, diagnosis in the VA system, and receipt of curative treatment were associated significantly with survival. CONCLUSIONS These results highlight the importance of HCC screening and engagement in care for HCC diagnosis, treatment, and survival while demonstrating the feasibility of developing a national quality improvement agenda for HCC screening, diagnosis, and treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shari S Rogal
- VA Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
| | - Tamar H Taddei
- VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut; Section of Digestive Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Alexander Monto
- San Francisco VA Health Care System, San Francisco, California
| | - Vera Yakovchenko
- VA Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Heather Patton
- Gastroenterology Section, Jennifer Moreno VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, California
| | - Monica Merante
- VA Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Patrick Spoutz
- Pharmacy Benefits Management, Veterans Integrated Service Network 20, Vancouver, Washington
| | - Linda Chia
- Pharmacy Benefits Management, Veterans Integrated Service Network 20, Vancouver, Washington
| | - Jennifer Yudkevich
- VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, Brooklyn Campus, Brooklyn, New York
| | - Ayse Aytaman
- VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, Brooklyn Campus, Brooklyn, New York; SUNY Health Science Center Brooklyn, Brooklyn, New York
| | - Atoosa Rabiee
- Washington DC VA Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Binu V John
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Miami VA Healthcare System, Miami, Florida; Division of Digestive Health and Liver Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
| | - Boris Blechacz
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, VA South Texas Health Care System, San Antonio, Texas
| | - Cindy X Cai
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, VA Loma Linda Healthcare System, Loma Linda, California; Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California; Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, California
| | - HoChong Gilles
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Central Virginia VA Healthcare System, Richmond, Virginia
| | - Anand S Shah
- Division of Gastroenterology, Joseph Maxwell Cleland Atlanta VA Medical Center, Decatur, Georgia; Division of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | | | - Puneet Puri
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Central Virginia VA Healthcare System, Richmond, Virginia; Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Department of Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia
| | - Janice Jou
- VA Portland Healthcare System, Portland, Oregon; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | - Khurram Mazhar
- VA North Texas Health Care System, Dallas, Texas; Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Jason A Dominitz
- VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington; Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
| | - Jennifer Anwar
- Gastroenterology Section, VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, California
| | - Timothy R Morgan
- Gastroenterology Section, VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, California; Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, California
| | - George N Ioannou
- VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington; Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Yakovchenko V, Lamorte C, Chinman MJ, Goodrich DE, Gibson S, Park A, Bajaj JS, McCurdy H, Morgan TR, Rogal SS. Comparing the CFIR-ERIC matching tool recommendations to real-world strategy effectiveness data: a mixed-methods study in the Veterans Health Administration. Implement Sci 2023; 18:49. [PMID: 37828539 PMCID: PMC10571268 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-023-01307-x] [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: 12/06/2022] [Accepted: 09/25/2023] [Indexed: 10/14/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Practical and feasible methods for matching implementation strategies to diagnosed barriers of evidence-based interventions in real-world contexts are lacking. This evaluation compared actual implementation strategies applied with those recommended by an expert opinion-based tool to improve guideline-concordant cirrhosis care in a Veterans Health Administration national learning collaborative effort. METHODS This convergent parallel mixed-methods study aimed to (1) identify pre-implementation Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) barriers to cirrhosis care through focus groups with frontline providers, (2) generate 20 recommended strategies using focus group identified barriers entered into the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) Implementation Strategy Matching Tool, (3) survey providers over two consecutive years on the actual use of 73 ERIC strategies and determine strategy effectiveness, (4) compare actual versus recommended strategy use, and (5) compare actual versus expected barriers by reverse applying the CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool. RESULTS Eighteen semi-structured focus groups were conducted with 197 providers representing 95 VA sites to identify barriers to quality improvement, including cirrhosis care complexity, clarity of national goals, and local leadership support. The CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool recommended strategies such as assessing for readiness and needs, promoting adaptability, building local groups, preparing champions, and working with opinion leaders and early adopters. Subsequent strategy surveys found that sites used the top 20 "recommended" strategies no more frequently than other strategies. However, 14 (70%) of the top recommended strategies were significantly positively associated with cirrhosis care compared to 48% of actual strategies. Reverse CFIR-ERIC matching found that the strategies most used in the first year corresponded to the following barriers: opinion leaders, access to knowledge and information, and resources. The strategies most frequently employed in the second year addressed barriers such as champions, cosmopolitanism, readiness for implementation, relative priority, and patient needs and resources. Strategies used in both years were those that addressed adaptability, trialability, and compatibility. CONCLUSIONS This study is among the first to empirically evaluate the relationship between CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool recommended strategies and actual strategy selection and effectiveness in the real world. We found closer connections between recommended strategies and strategy effectiveness compared to strategy frequency, suggesting validity of barrier identification, and application of the expert-informed tool.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vera Yakovchenko
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive C (151C), Building 30, Pittsburgh, PA, 15240-1001, USA
| | - Carolyn Lamorte
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive C (151C), Building 30, Pittsburgh, PA, 15240-1001, USA
| | - Matthew J Chinman
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive C (151C), Building 30, Pittsburgh, PA, 15240-1001, USA
- Mental Health Research, Education, and Clinical Center, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - David E Goodrich
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive C (151C), Building 30, Pittsburgh, PA, 15240-1001, USA
| | - Sandra Gibson
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive C (151C), Building 30, Pittsburgh, PA, 15240-1001, USA
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Angela Park
- Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Healthcare Transformation, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Jasmohan S Bajaj
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Central Virginia VA Health Care System, Richmond, VA, USA
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| | | | - Timothy R Morgan
- Gastroenterology Section, VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, CA, USA
- Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Orange, CA, USA
| | - Shari S Rogal
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive C (151C), Building 30, Pittsburgh, PA, 15240-1001, USA.
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
- Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Adejumo AC, Yakovchenko V, Morgan TR, Spoutz P, Chia L, Bajaj JS, Chang MF, Dominitz JA, Rogal SS. The road to pandemic recovery: Tracking COVID-19's impact on cirrhosis care and outcomes among 111,558 Veterans. Hepatology 2023; 77:2016-2029. [PMID: 36705024 DOI: 10.1097/hep.0000000000000306] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2022] [Accepted: 12/24/2022] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AIMS This study aimed to evaluate quarterly trends in process and health outcomes among Veterans with cirrhosis and assess the factors associated with cirrhosis outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. APPROACH RESULTS US Veterans with cirrhosis were identified using the Veterans Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse. Quarterly measures were evaluated from September 30, 2018, through March 31, 2022, including twice yearly screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC-6), new HCC, surveillance for or treatment of esophageal varices, variceal bleeding, all-cause hospitalization, and mortality. Joinpoint analyses were used to assess the changes in trends over time. Logistic regression models were used to identify the demographic and medical factors associated with each outcome over time. Among 111,558 Veterans with cirrhosis with a mean Model for End-stage Liver Disease-Sodium of 11±5, rates of HCC-6 sharply declined from a prepandemic peak of 41%, to a nadir of 28%, and rebounded to 36% by March 2022. All-cause mortality did not significantly change over the pandemic, but new HCC diagnosis, EVST, variceal bleeding, and all-cause hospitalization significantly declined over follow-up. Quarterly HCC diagnosis declined from 0.49% to 0.38%, EVST from 50% to 41%, variceal bleeding from 0.15% to 0.11%, and hospitalization from 9% to 5%. Rurality became newly, significantly associated with nonscreening over the pandemic (aOR for HCC-6=0.80, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.86; aOR for EVST=0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.997). CONCLUSIONS The pandemic continues to impact cirrhosis care. Identifying populations at the highest risk of care disruptions may help to address ongoing areas of need.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adeyinka C Adejumo
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Vera Yakovchenko
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Timothy R Morgan
- Gastroenterology Section, VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, California, USA
| | - Patrick Spoutz
- Pharmacy Benefits Management, Veterans Integrated Service Network 20, Vancouver, Washington, USA
| | - Linda Chia
- Pharmacy Benefits Management, Veterans Integrated Service Network 8, Bay Pines, Florida, USA
| | - Jasmohan S Bajaj
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA
- VA Richmond Health Care System, Richmond, Virginia, USA
| | - Michael F Chang
- Gastroenterology and Hepatology, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Jason A Dominitz
- VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington, USA
- Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Shari S Rogal
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
- Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Yakovchenko V, Rogal SS, Goodrich DE, Lamorte C, Neely B, Merante M, Gibson S, Scott D, McCurdy H, Nobbe A, Morgan TR, Chinman MJ. Getting to implementation: Adaptation of an implementation playbook. Front Public Health 2023; 10:980958. [PMID: 36684876 PMCID: PMC9853037 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.980958] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2022] [Accepted: 12/12/2022] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction Implementation strategies supporting the translation of evidence into practice need to be tailored and adapted for maximum effectiveness, yet the field of adapting implementation strategies remains nascent. We aimed to adapt "Getting To Outcomes"® (GTO), a 10-step implementation playbook designed to help community-based organizations plan and evaluate behavioral health programs, into "Getting To Implementation" (GTI) to support the selection, tailoring, and use of implementation strategies in health care settings. Methods Our embedded evaluation team partnered with operations, external facilitators, and site implementers to employ participatory methods to co-design and adapt GTO for Veterans Health Administration (VA) outpatient cirrhosis care improvement. The Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidenced-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) guided documentation and analysis of changes made pre- and post-implementation of GTI at 12 VA medical centers. Data from multiple sources (interviews, observation, content analysis, and fidelity tracking) were triangulated and analyzed using rapid techniques over a 3-year period. Results Adaptations during pre-implementation were planned, proactive, and focused on context and content to improve acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the GTI playbook. Modifications during and after implementation were unplanned and reactive, concentrating on adoption, fidelity, and sustainability. All changes were collaboratively developed, fidelity consistent at the level of the facilitator and/or implementer. Conclusion GTO was initially adapted to GTI to support health care teams' selection and use of implementation strategies for improving guideline-concordant medical care. GTI required ongoing modification, particularly in steps regarding team building, context assessment, strategy selection, and sustainability due to difficulties with step clarity and progression. This work also highlights the challenges in pragmatic approaches to collecting and synthesizing implementation, fidelity, and adaptation data. Trial registration This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04178096).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vera Yakovchenko
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
| | - Shari S. Rogal
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
- Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
| | - David E. Goodrich
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
| | - Carolyn Lamorte
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
| | - Brittney Neely
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
| | - Monica Merante
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
| | - Sandra Gibson
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
| | - Dawn Scott
- Department of Medicine, Central Texas Veterans Healthcare System, Temple, TX, United States
| | - Heather McCurdy
- VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, United States
| | - Anna Nobbe
- Digestive Disease Section, Cincinnati VA Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, United States
| | - Timothy R. Morgan
- Gastroenterology Section, VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, CA, United States
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States
| | - Matthew J. Chinman
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
- RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Jurczuk M, Thakar R, Carroll FE, Phillips L, van der Meulen J, Gurol-Urganci I, Sevdalis N. Design and management considerations for control groups in hybrid effectiveness-implementation trials: Narrative review & case studies. FRONTIERS IN HEALTH SERVICES 2023; 3:1059015. [PMID: 36926502 PMCID: PMC10012616 DOI: 10.3389/frhs.2023.1059015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2022] [Accepted: 02/06/2023] [Indexed: 03/12/2023]
Abstract
Hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies allow researchers to combine study of a clinical intervention's effectiveness with study of its implementation with the aim of accelerating the translation of evidence into practice. However, there currently exists limited guidance on how to design and manage such hybrid studies. This is particularly true for studies that include a comparison/control arm that, by design, receives less implementation support than the intervention arm. Lack of such guidance can present a challenge for researchers both in setting up but also in effectively managing participating sites in such trials. This paper uses a narrative review of the literature (Phase 1 of the research) and comparative case study of three studies (Phase 2 of the research) to identify common themes related to study design and management. Based on these, we comment and reflect on: (1) the balance that needs to be struck between fidelity to the study design and tailoring to emerging requests from participating sites as part of the research process, and (2) the modifications to the implementation strategies being evaluated. Hybrid trial teams should carefully consider the impact of design selection, trial management decisions, and any modifications to implementation processes and/or support on the delivery of a controlled evaluation. The rationale for these choices should be systematically reported to fill the gap in the literature.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Magdalena Jurczuk
- Centre for Quality Improvement and Clinical Audit, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ranee Thakar
- Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Croydon University Hospitals NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Fran E Carroll
- Centre for Quality Improvement and Clinical Audit, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, United Kingdom
| | - Lizzie Phillips
- Centre for Quality Improvement and Clinical Audit, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, United Kingdom.,Maternity Services, University Hospital Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, United Kingdom
| | - Jan van der Meulen
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ipek Gurol-Urganci
- Centre for Quality Improvement and Clinical Audit, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, United Kingdom.,Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Nick Sevdalis
- Centre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Yakovchenko V, Morgan TR, Miech EJ, Neely B, Lamorte C, Gibson S, Beste LA, McCurdy H, Scott D, Gonzalez R, Park A, Powell BJ, Bajaj JS, Dominitz JA, Chartier M, Ross D, Chinman MJ, Rogal SS. Core implementation strategies for improving cirrhosis care in the Veterans Health Administration. Hepatology 2022; 76:404-417. [PMID: 35124820 PMCID: PMC9288973 DOI: 10.1002/hep.32395] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2021] [Revised: 01/11/2022] [Accepted: 01/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides care for more than 80,000 veterans with cirrhosis. This longitudinal, multimethod evaluation of a cirrhosis care quality improvement program aimed to (1) identify implementation strategies associated with evidence-based, guideline-concordant cirrhosis care over time, and (2) use qualitative interviews to operationalize strategies for a manualized intervention. APPROACH AND RESULTS VHA providers were surveyed annually about the use of 73 implementation strategies to improve cirrhosis care in fiscal years 2018 (FY18) and 2019 (FY19). Implementation strategies linked to guideline-concordant cirrhosis care were identified using bivariate statistics and comparative configurational methods. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 12 facilities in the highest quartile of cirrhosis care to specify the successful implementation strategies and their mechanisms of change. A total of 106 VHA facilities (82%) responded at least once over the 2-year period (FY18, n = 63; FY19, n = 100). Facilities reported using a median of 12 (interquartile range [IQR] 20) implementation strategies in FY18 and 10 (IQR 19) in FY19. Of the 73 strategies, 35 (48%) were positively correlated with provision of evidence-based cirrhosis care. Configurational analysis identified multiple strategy pathways directly linked to more guideline-concordant cirrhosis care. Across both methods, a subset of eight strategies was determined to be core to cirrhosis care improvement and specified using qualitative interviews. CONCLUSIONS In a national cirrhosis care improvement initiative, a multimethod approach identified a core subset of successful implementation strategy combinations. This process of empirically identifying and specifying implementation strategies may be applicable to other implementation challenges in hepatology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vera Yakovchenko
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA
| | - Timothy R. Morgan
- Gastroenterology Section, VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, CA,Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA
| | - Edward J. Miech
- Department of Veterans Affairs, Roudebush VA Medical Center, HSR&D Center for Health Information & Communication, VA PRIS-M QUERI, Indianapolis, IN,Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, IN
| | - Brittney Neely
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Carolyn Lamorte
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Sandra Gibson
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA,Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Lauren A. Beste
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA,General Medicine Service, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA
| | | | - Dawn Scott
- Department of Medicine, Central Texas Veterans Healthcare System, Temple, TX
| | - Rachel Gonzalez
- Department of Veterans Affairs, Sierra Pacific Veterans Integrated Service Network, Pharmacy Benefits Management, Mather, CA
| | - Angela Park
- Office of Healthcare Transformation, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC
| | - Byron J. Powell
- Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO
| | - Jasmohan S. Bajaj
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA,Division of Gastroenterology, Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Richmond, VA
| | - Jason A. Dominitz
- Gastroenterology Section, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA,Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA
| | - Maggie Chartier
- HIV, Hepatitis, and Related Conditions Programs, Office of Specialty Care Services, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC
| | - David Ross
- HIV, Hepatitis, and Related Conditions Programs, Office of Specialty Care Services, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC
| | - Matthew J. Chinman
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA,RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Shari S. Rogal
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA,Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA,Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Davis MM, Schneider JL, Petrik AF, Miech EJ, Younger B, Escaron AL, Rivelli JS, Thompson JH, Nyongesa D, Coronado GD. Clinic Factors Associated With Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Completion: The Difference-Making Role of Support Staff. Ann Fam Med 2022; 20:123-129. [PMID: 35346927 PMCID: PMC8959740 DOI: 10.1370/afm.2772] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2021] [Revised: 07/22/2021] [Accepted: 08/17/2021] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs can facilitate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We sought to identify modifiable, clinic-level factors that distinguish primary care clinics with higher vs lower FIT completion rates in response to a centralized mailed FIT program. METHODS We used baseline observational data from 15 clinics within a single urban federally qualified health center participating in a pragmatic trial to optimize a mailed FIT program. Clinic-level data included interviews with leadership using a guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and FIT completion rates. We used template analysis to identify explanatory factors and configurational comparative methods to identify specific combinations of clinic-level conditions that uniquely distinguished clinics with higher and lower FIT completion rates. RESULTS We interviewed 39 clinic leaders and identified 58 potential explanatory factors representing clinic workflows and the CFIR inner setting domain. Clinic-level FIT completion rates ranged from 30% to 56%. The configurational model for clinics with higher rates (≥37%) featured any 1 of the following 3 factors related to support staff: (1) adding back- or front-office staff in past 12 months, (2) having staff help patients resolve barriers to CRC screening, and (3) having staff hand out FITs/educate patients. The model for clinics with lower rates involved the combined absence of these same 3 factors. CONCLUSIONS Three factors related to support staff differentiated clinics with higher and lower FIT completion rates. Adding nonphysician support staff and having those staff provide enabling services might help clinics optimize mailed FIT screening programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melinda M Davis
- Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network, Department of Family Medicine, and School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | | | - Amanda F Petrik
- Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon
| | - Edward J Miech
- Regenstrief Institute, Center for Health Services Research, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Brittany Younger
- AltaMed Institute for Health Equity, AltaMed Health Services Corporation, Los Angeles, California
| | - Anne L Escaron
- AltaMed Institute for Health Equity, AltaMed Health Services Corporation, Los Angeles, California
| | - Jennifer S Rivelli
- Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon
| | - Jamie H Thompson
- Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon
| | - Denis Nyongesa
- Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon
| | - Gloria D Coronado
- Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Getting To Implementation (GTI)-Teach: A seven-step approach for teaching the fundamentals of implementation science. J Clin Transl Sci 2022; 6:e100. [PMID: 36106128 PMCID: PMC9428668 DOI: 10.1017/cts.2022.420] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/18/2022] [Revised: 05/31/2022] [Accepted: 06/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction: Implementation Science (IS) is a complex and rapidly evolving discipline, posing challenges for educators. We developed, implemented, and evaluated a novel, pragmatic approach to teach IS. Methods: Getting To Implementation (GTI)-Teach was developed as a seven-step educational model to guide students through the process of developing, conducting, and sustaining an IS research project. During the four-week online course, students applied the steps to self-selected implementation problems. Students were invited to complete two online post-course surveys to assess course satisfaction and self-reported changes in IS knowledge and relevance of GTI-Teach Steps to their work. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics; self-reported post-course changes in IS knowledge were compared using paired t-tests. Results: GTI-Teach was developed to include seven Steps: 1. Define the implementation problem; 2. Conceptualize the problem; 3. Prioritize implementation barriers and facilitators; 4. Select and tailor implementation strategies; 5. Design an implementation study; 6. Evaluate implementation; 7. Sustain implementation. Thirteen students, ranging in experience from medical students to full professors, enrolled in and completed the first GTI-Teach course. Of the seven students (54%) completing an end-of course survey, six (86%) were very satisfied with the course. Ten students (77%) responded to the tailored, 6-month post-course follow-up survey. They retrospectively reported a significant increase in their knowledge across all steps of GTI-Teach (1.3–1.8 points on a 5-point Likert scale) and rated each of the Steps as highly relevant to their work. Conclusions: GTI-Teach is a seven-step model for teaching IS fundamentals that students reported increased their knowledge and was relevant to their work.
Collapse
|
14
|
Tapper EB, Parikh ND. The Future of Quality Improvement for Cirrhosis. Liver Transpl 2021; 27:1479-1489. [PMID: 33887806 PMCID: PMC8487907 DOI: 10.1002/lt.26079] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2021] [Revised: 04/01/2021] [Accepted: 04/15/2021] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
Cirrhosis has a significant and growing impact on public health and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The increasing burden of cirrhosis has led to an emphasis on the quality of care with the goal of improving overall outcomes in this high-risk population. Existing evidence has shown the significant gaps in quality across process measures (eg, hepatocellular carcinoma screening), highlighting the need for consistent measurement and interventions to address the gaps in quality care. This multistep process forms the quality continuum, and it depends on clearly defined process measures, real-time quality measurement, and generalizable evaluative methods. Herein we review the current state of quality care in cirrhosis across the continuum with a focus on process measurement methodologies, developments in PRO evaluation on quality assessment, practical examples of quality improvement initiatives, and the recent emphasis placed on the value of primary prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elliot B Tapper
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology University of Michigan Ann Arbor MI
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Moghe A, Yakovchenko V, Morgan T, McCurdy H, Scott D, Rozenberg-Ben-Dror K, Rogal S. Strategies to Improve Delivery of Cirrhosis Care. CURRENT TREATMENT OPTIONS IN GASTROENTEROLOGY 2021; 19:369-379. [PMID: 34054289 PMCID: PMC8142883 DOI: 10.1007/s11938-021-00345-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
Purpose of review This review provides an overview of the current state of research around improving healthcare delivery for patients with cirrhosis in the outpatient, inpatient, and transitional care settings. Recent findings Recent studies have broadly employed changes to the model of care delivery, team composition, and technology to improve cirrhosis care. In the outpatient setting, approaches have included engaging caregivers, patient navigators, and non-physicians and using virtual care, smartphone applications, and wearables. Inpatient care approaches have focused on the role of interdisciplinary teams, education interventions, and changes to the medical record system, while post-discharge interventions have included day hospitals and care coordinator interventions. This review also describes the Veterans Health Administration's novel, population-level approach to delivery of cirrhosis care, and addressed how the pandemic has impacted the delivery of cirrhosis care. Summary Comprehensive, evidence-based approaches to delivering high-quality cirrhosis care continue to evolve to meet the needs of a growing population in an ever-changing healthcare environment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Akshata Moghe
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA USA
| | - Vera Yakovchenko
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial VA Hospital, Bedford, MA USA
| | - Timothy Morgan
- Gastroenterology Section, VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, CA USA
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA USA
| | | | - Dawn Scott
- Central Texas Veterans Healthcare System, Temple, TX USA
| | | | - Shari Rogal
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Research Office Building (151R), University Drive C, Pittsburgh, PA 15240 USA
- Departments of Medicine and Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Rogal SS, Yakovchenko V, Gonzalez R, Park A, Beste LA, Rozenberg-Ben-Dror K, Bajaj JS, Scott D, McCurdy H, Comstock E, Sidorovic M, Gibson S, Lamorte C, Nobbe A, Chartier M, Ross D, Dominitz JA, Morgan TR. The Hepatic Innovation Team Collaborative: A Successful Population-Based Approach to Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13092251. [PMID: 34067177 PMCID: PMC8125814 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13092251] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2021] [Revised: 04/24/2021] [Accepted: 04/26/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Liver cancer is a growing problem that largely impacts people with cirrhosis. This article describes the Veterans Health Administration’s national cirrhosis quality improvement program and its focus on early detection of liver cancer. Abstract After implementing a successful hepatitis C elimination program, the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA) Hepatic Innovation Team (HIT) Collaborative pivoted to focus on improving cirrhosis care. This national program developed teams of providers across the country and engaged them in using systems redesign methods and population health approaches to improve care. The HIT Collaborative developed an Advanced Liver Disease (ALD) Dashboard to identify Veterans with cirrhosis who were due for surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and other liver care, promoted the use of an HCC Clinical Reminder in the electronic health record, and provided training and networking opportunities. This evaluation aimed to describe the VHA’s approach to improving cirrhosis care and identify the facility factors and HIT activities associated with HCC surveillance rates, using a quasi-experimental design. Across all VHA facilities, as the HIT focused on cirrhosis between 2018–2019, HCC surveillance rates increased from 46% (IQR 37–53%) to 51% (IQR 42–60%, p < 0.001). The median HCC surveillance rate was 57% in facilities with high ALD Dashboard utilization compared with 45% in facilities with lower utilization (p < 0.001) and 58% in facilities using the HCC Clinical Reminder compared with 47% in facilities not using this tool (p < 0.001) in FY19. Increased use of the ALD Dashboard and adoption of the HCC Clinical Reminder were independently, significantly associated with HCC surveillance rates in multivariate models, controlling for other facility characteristics. In conclusion, the VHA’s HIT Collaborative is a national healthcare initiative associated with significant improvement in HCC surveillance rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shari S. Rogal
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive (151C), Pittsburgh, PA 15240, USA; (S.G.); (C.L.)
- Departments of Medicine and Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, 3550 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15240, USA
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +1-412-360-6177
| | - Vera Yakovchenko
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Bedford Healthcare System, 200 Springs Road (152), Building 70, Bedford, MA 01730, USA;
| | - Rachel Gonzalez
- Department of Veterans Affairs, Sierra Pacific Veterans Integrated Service Network, Pharmacy Benefits Management, Mather, CA 94523, USA;
| | - Angela Park
- Office of Healthcare Transformation, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, Washington, DC 20420, USA;
| | - Lauren A. Beste
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA 98195, USA;
- General Medicine Service, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, 1660 S Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108, USA
| | - Karine Rozenberg-Ben-Dror
- Veteran Affairs Great Lakes Health Care System, VISN 12 PBM, 11301 W Cermak Road, Ste 810, Westchester, IL 60154, USA;
| | - Jasmohan S. Bajaj
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1200 E Broad Street, West Hospital, 14th Floor, Box 980341, Richmond, VA 23298, USA;
- Division of Gastroenterology, Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, 1201 Broad Rock Blvd, Richmond, VA 23249, USA
| | - Dawn Scott
- Department of Medicine, Central Texas Veterans Healthcare System, 1901 Veterans Memorial Drive, Temple, TX 76504, USA;
| | - Heather McCurdy
- VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Rd, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA;
| | - Emily Comstock
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Baltimore VA Medical Center, 10 N Greene Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA;
| | - Michael Sidorovic
- Salisbury VA Medical Center, 1601 Brenner Avenue, Salisbury, NC 28144, USA;
| | - Sandra Gibson
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive (151C), Pittsburgh, PA 15240, USA; (S.G.); (C.L.)
| | - Carolyn Lamorte
- Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive (151C), Pittsburgh, PA 15240, USA; (S.G.); (C.L.)
| | - Anna Nobbe
- Digestive Disease Section, Cincinnati VA Medical Center, 3200 Vine Street, Cincinnati, OH 45220, USA;
| | - Maggie Chartier
- HIV, Hepatitis, and Related Conditions, Office of Specialty Care Services (10P11I), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, Washington, DC 20420, USA; (M.C.); (D.R.)
| | - David Ross
- HIV, Hepatitis, and Related Conditions, Office of Specialty Care Services (10P11I), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, Washington, DC 20420, USA; (M.C.); (D.R.)
| | - Jason A. Dominitz
- Gastroenterology Section, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, 1660 S Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108, USA;
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, RR-512, Health Sciences Building, University of Washington School of Medicine, Box 356420, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Timothy R. Morgan
- Gastroenterology Section, VA Long Beach Healthcare System, 5901 E 7th Street, Long Beach, CA 90822, USA;
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California, 333 City Blvd. West, Suite 400, Orange, CA 92868, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Miller CJ, Barnett ML, Baumann AA, Gutner CA, Wiltsey-Stirman S. The FRAME-IS: a framework for documenting modifications to implementation strategies in healthcare. Implement Sci 2021; 16:36. [PMID: 33827716 PMCID: PMC8024675 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-021-01105-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 198] [Impact Index Per Article: 49.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2020] [Accepted: 03/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Implementation strategies are necessary to ensure that evidence-based practices are successfully incorporated into routine clinical practice. Such strategies, however, are frequently modified to fit local populations, settings, and contexts. While such modifications can be crucial to implementation success, the literature on documenting and evaluating them is virtually nonexistent. In this paper, we therefore describe the development of a new framework for documenting modifications to implementation strategies. DISCUSSION We employed a multifaceted approach to developing the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS), incorporating multiple stakeholder perspectives. Development steps included presentations of initial versions of the FRAME-IS to solicit structured feedback from individual implementation scientists ("think-aloud" exercises) and larger, international groups of researchers. The FRAME-IS includes core and supplementary modules to document modifications to implementation strategies: what is modified, the nature of the modification (including the relationship to core elements or functions), the primary goal and rationale for the modification, timing of the modification, participants in the modification decision-making process, and how widespread the modification is. We provide an example of application of the FRAME-IS to an implementation project and provide guidance on how it may be used in future work. CONCLUSION Increasing attention is being given to modifications to evidence-based practices, but little work has investigated modifications to the implementation strategies used to implement such practices. To fill this gap, the FRAME-IS is meant to be a flexible, practical tool for documenting modifications to implementation strategies. Its use may help illuminate the pivotal processes and mechanisms by which implementation strategies exert their effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Miller
- VA Boston Healthcare System, Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), Boston, MA, USA.
- Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Miya L Barnett
- Department of Counseling, Clinical, & School Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
| | - Ana A Baumann
- Washington University at St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Cassidy A Gutner
- ViiV Healthcare, Innovation & Implementation Science, Research Triangle, NC, USA
- Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Shannon Wiltsey-Stirman
- National Center for PTSD Dissemination and Training Division, Palo Alto, CA, USA
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Whitaker RG, Sperber N, Baumgartner M, Thiem A, Cragun D, Damschroder L, Miech EJ, Slade A, Birken S. Coincidence analysis: a new method for causal inference in implementation science. Implement Sci 2020; 15:108. [PMID: 33308250 PMCID: PMC7730775 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-020-01070-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2020] [Accepted: 12/01/2020] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Implementation of multifaceted interventions typically involves many diverse elements working together in interrelated ways, including intervention components, implementation strategies, and features of local context. Given this real-world complexity, implementation researchers may be interested in a new mathematical, cross-case method called Coincidence Analysis (CNA) that has been designed explicitly to support causal inference, answer research questions about combinations of conditions that are minimally necessary or sufficient for an outcome, and identify the possible presence of multiple causal paths to an outcome. CNA can be applied as a standalone method or in conjunction with other approaches and can reveal new empirical findings related to implementation that might otherwise have gone undetected. METHODS We applied CNA to a publicly available dataset from Sweden with county-level data on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination campaigns and vaccination uptake in 2012 and 2014 and then compared CNA results to the published regression findings. RESULTS The original regression analysis found vaccination uptake was positively associated only with the availability of vaccines in schools. CNA produced different findings and uncovered an additional solution path: high vaccination rates were achieved by either (1) offering the vaccine in all schools or (2) a combination of offering the vaccine in some schools and media coverage. CONCLUSIONS CNA offers a new comparative approach for researchers seeking to understand how implementation conditions work together and link to outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca Garr Whitaker
- Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, 100 Fuqua Drive, Box 90120, Durham, NC 27708 USA
| | - Nina Sperber
- Duke University School of Medicine, Department of Population Health Sciences, 215 Morris Street, Durham, NC 27701 USA
| | - Michael Baumgartner
- University of Bergen, Department of Philosophy, Postboks 7805, 5020 Bergen, Norway
| | - Alrik Thiem
- University of Lucerne, Frohburgstrasse 3, P.O. Box 4466, 6002 Lucerne, Switzerland
| | - Deborah Cragun
- Department of Global Health, College of Public Health, University of South Florida, 3802 Spectrum Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33612 USA
| | - Laura Damschroder
- VA Ann Arbor Center for Clinical Management Research, University of Michigan, North Campus Research Complex, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 18, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2800 USA
| | - Edward J. Miech
- Center for Health Services Research, Regenstrief Institute, 1101 West 10th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
| | - Alecia Slade
- Avalere Health, 1201 New York Avenue NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005 USA
| | - Sarah Birken
- Department of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, 525@Vine Room 5219, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC 27157 USA
| |
Collapse
|