Facilitators and barriers for implementation of health programmes with Māori communities

BACKGROUND

Addressing health inequities that Māori (Indigenous peoples) communities face in New Zealand is a key aim of researchers and practitioners. However, there is limited understanding of the implementation processes and outcomes of health programmes for addressing these inequities. The aim of this study was twofold: (a) to identify correlates of implementation outcomes and (b) to identify facilitators and barriers to implementation effectiveness.

METHODS

The study involved a concurrent mixed method approach. Through an online survey, 79 participants with experience in implementing a health programme with a Māori community identified outcomes and processes of the programme. Additionally, nine Māori community providers shared their perceptions and experience of facilitators and barriers to implementation effectiveness through an in-depth interview. The quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated to address the aims of the study.

RESULTS

For the first aim, we identified two key outcomes: overall health impacts and sustainability. Three of the variables had significant and positive bivariate correlations with health impacts: cultural alignment, community engagement, and individual skills. The only significant correlate of sustainability was evidence-based. For the second aim, participants described four facilitators (leadership, whanaungatanga [relationships], sharing information, digestible information) and four barriers (system constraints, lack of funding, cultural constraints, lack of engagement) to effective implementation.

CONCLUSION

Overall, leadership, aligning culture, and building on whanaungatanga, while getting financial resources and systems support, are the core elements to supporting implementation efforts in Māori communities.

Views of German mental health professionals on the use of digital mental health interventions for eating disorders: a qualitative interview study

INTRODUCTION

Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) are getting increasingly important for mental health care. In the case of eating disorders (EDs), DMHIs are still in early stages. Few studies so far investigated the views of mental health professionals for EDs on the integration of DMHIs in routine care.

OBJECTIVE

To gain insights into the experiences, perspectives, and expectations of mental health professionals for EDs regarding DMHIs and to identify requirements for the future integration of DMHIs into routine care.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews with 24 German mental health professionals treating patients with EDs were conducted. A content analysis following a deductive-inductive approach asked for experiences, advantages and chances, disadvantages and boundaries, desired functions and properties, target groups, and general conditions and requirements for DMHIs for patients with EDs.

RESULTS

Only few professionals reported experiences with DMHIs besides video-based psychotherapy during the pandemic. From the therapists' point of view, DMHIs have the potential to deliver low-threshold access for patients with EDs. Useful functionalities were seen in digital meal records, skills training, and psychoeducation. However, a stable therapeutic alliance was reported as an important prerequisite for the successful integration into care. Therapists expressed concerns in case of severe anorexia nervosa or suicidality. The participants felt to be informed inadequately on recent developments and on the evidence base of DMHIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Mental health professionals for EDs show positive attitudes towards DMHIs, however many barriers to the integration in routine care were observed. The highest potential was seen for the use of DMHIs in addition to outpatient care and in aftercare. Specific requirements for DMHIs are related to different areas of the healthcare spectrum and for the different symptom profiles in anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder. Targeted DMHIs are needed and appropriate especially for concepts of blended care.

Reducing work pressure and IT problems and facilitating IT integration and audit & feedback help adherence to perioperative safety guidelines: a survey among 95 perioperative professionals

Background

To improve perioperative patient safety, guidelines for the preoperative, peroperative, and postoperative phase were introduced in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2013. To help the implementation of these guidelines, we aimed to get a better understanding of the barriers and drivers of perioperative guideline adherence and to explore what can be learned for future implementation projects in complex organizations.

Methods

We developed a questionnaire survey based on the theoretical framework of Van Sluisveld et al. for classifying barriers and facilitators. The questionnaire contained 57 statements derived from (a) an instrument for measuring determinants of innovations by the Dutch Organization for Applied Scientific Research, (b) interviews with quality and safety policy officers and perioperative professionals, and (c) a publication of Cabana et al. The target group consisted of 232 perioperative professionals in nine hospitals. In addition to rating the statements on a five-point Likert scale (which were classified into the seven categories of the framework: factors relating to the intervention, society, implementation, organization, professional, patients, and social factors), respondents were invited to rank their three most important barriers in a separate, extra open-ended question.

Results

Ninety-five professionals (41%) completed the questionnaire. Fifteen statements (26%) were considered to be barriers, relating to social factors (N = 5), the organization (N = 4), the professional (N = 4), the patient (N = 1), and the intervention (N = 1). An integrated information system was considered an important facilitator (70.4%) as well as audit and feedback (41.8%). The Barriers Top-3 question resulted in 75 different barriers in nearly all categories. The most frequently reported barriers were as follows: time pressure (16% of the total number of barriers), emergency patients (8%), inefficient IT structure (4%), and workload (3%).

Conclusions

We identified a wide range of barriers that are believed to hinder the use of the perioperative safety guidelines, while an integrated information system and local data collection and feedback will also be necessary to engage perioperative teams. These barriers need to be locally prioritized and addressed by tailored implementation strategies. These results may also be of relevance for guideline implementation in general in complex organizations.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Registry: NTR3568.