Effective strategies for scaling up evidence-based practices in primary care: a systematic review

Assessing the scalability of innovations in primary care: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Canadian health funding currently prioritizes scaling up for evidence-based primary care innovations, but not all teams prepare for scaling up. We explored scalability assessment among primary care innovators in the province of Quebec to evaluate their preparedness for scaling up.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional survey from Feb. 18 to Mar. 18, 2019. Eligible participants were 33 innovation teams selected for the 2019 Quebec College of Family Physicians' Symposium on Innovations. We conducted a Web-based survey in 2 sections: innovation characteristics and the Innovation Scalability Self-administered Questionnaire. The latter includes 16 criteria (scalability components) grouped into 5 dimensions: theory (1 criterion), impact (6 criteria), coverage (4 criteria), setting (3 criteria) and cost (2 criteria). We classified innovation types using the International Classification of Health Interventions. We performed a descriptive analysis using frequency counts and percentages.

RESULTS

Out of 33 teams, 24 participated (72.7%), with 1 innovation each. The types of innovation were management (15/24), prevention (8/24) and therapeutic (1/24). Most management innovations focused on patient navigation (9/15). In order of frequency, teams had assessed theory (79.2%) and impact (79.2%) criteria, followed by cost (77.1%), setting (59.7%) and coverage (54.2%). Most innovations (16/24) had assessed 10 criteria or more, including 10 management innovations, 5 prevention innovations and 1 therapeutic innovation. Implementation fidelity was the least assessed criterion (6/24).

INTERPRETATION

The scalability assessments of a primary care innovation varied according to its type. Management innovations, which were the most prevalent and assessed the most scalability components, appear to be most prepared for primary care scale-up in Canada.

Key factors for national spread and scale-up of an eConsult innovation

BACKGROUND

Expanding healthcare innovations from the local to national level is a complex pursuit requiring careful assessment of all relevant factors. In this study (a component of a larger eConsult programme of research), we aimed to identify the key factors involved in the spread and scale-up of a successful regional eConsult model across Canada.

METHODS

We conducted a constant comparative thematic analysis of stakeholder discussions captured during a full-day National eConsult Forum meeting held in Ottawa, Canada, on 11 December 2017. Sixty-four participants attended, representing provincial and territorial governments, national organisations, healthcare providers, researchers and patients. Proceedings were recorded, transcribed and underwent qualitative analysis using the Framework for Applied Policy Research.

RESULTS

This study identified four main themes that were critical to support the intentional efforts to spread and scale-up eConsult across Canada, namely (1) identifying population care needs and access problems, (2) engaging stakeholders who were willing to roll up their sleeves and take action, (3) building on current strategies and policies, and (4) measuring and communicating outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to promote innovation in healthcare are more likely to succeed if they are based on an understanding of the forces that drive the spread and scale-up of innovation. Further research is needed to develop and strengthen the conceptual and applied foundations of the spread and scale-up of healthcare innovations, especially in the context of emergent learning health systems across Canada and beyond.

Theoretical and methodological considerations in evaluating large-scale health information technology change programmes

BACKGROUND

Attempts to achieve digital transformation across the health service have stimulated increasingly large-scale and more complex change programmes. These encompass a growing range of functions in multiple locations across the system and may take place over extended timeframes. This calls for new approaches to evaluate these programmes.

MAIN BODY

Drawing on over a decade of conducting formative and summative evaluations of health information technologies, we here build on previous work detailing evaluation challenges and ways to tackle these. Important considerations include changing organisational, economic, political, vendor and markets necessitating tracing of evolving networks, relationships, and processes; exploring mechanisms of spread; and studying selected settings in depth to understand local tensions and priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision-makers need to recognise that formative evaluations, if built on solid theoretical and methodological foundations, can help to mitigate risks and help to ensure that programmes have maximum chances of success.

Assessing scalability of an intervention: why, how and who?

Public health interventions should be designed with scale in mind, and researchers and implementers must plan for scale-up at an early stage. Yet, there is limited awareness among researchers of the critical value of considering scalability and relatively limited empirical evidence on assessing scalability, despite emerging methodological guidance. We aimed to integrate scalability considerations in the design of a study to evaluate a multi-component intervention to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in low- and middle-income countries. First, we reviewed and synthesized existing scale up frameworks to identify relevant dimensions and available scalability assessment tools. Based on these, we defined our scalability assessment process and adapted existing tools for our study. Here, we document our experience and the methodological challenges we encountered in integrating a scalability assessment in our study protocol. These include: achieving consensus on the purpose of a scalability assessment; and identifying the optimal timing of such an assessment, moving away from the concept of a one-off assessment at the start of a project. We also encountered tensions between the need to establish the proof of principle, and the need to design an innovation that would be fit-for-scale. Particularly for complex interventions, scaling up may warrant rigorous research to determine an efficient and effective scaling-up strategy. We call for researchers to better incorporate scalability considerations in pragmatic trials through greater integration of impact and process evaluation, more stringent definition and measurement of scale-up objectives and outcome evaluation plans that allow for comparison of effects at different stages of scale-up.

Essential items for reporting of scaling studies of health interventions (SUCCEED): protocol for a systematic review and Delphi process

BACKGROUND

The lack of a reporting guideline for scaling of evidence-based practices (EBPs) studies has prompted the registration of the Standards for reporting studies assessing the impact of scaling strategies of EBPs (SUCCEED) with EQUATOR Network. The development of SUCCEED will be guided by the following main steps recommended for developing health research reporting guidelines.

METHODS

Executive Committee. We established a committee composed of members of the core research team and of an advisory group. Systematic review. The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework on 29 November 2019 (https://osf.io/vcwfx/). We will include reporting guidelines or other reports that may include items relevant to studies assessing the impact of scaling strategies. We will search the following electronic databases: EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, from inception. In addition, we will systematically search websites of EQUATOR and other relevant organizations. Experts in the field of reporting guidelines will also be contacted. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers. A narrative analysis will be conducted to compile a list of items for the Delphi exercise.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

We will invite panelists with expertise in: development of relevant reporting guidelines, methodologists, content experts, patient/member of the public, implementers, journal editors, and funders. We anticipated that three rounds of web-based Delphi consensus will be needed for an acceptable degree of agreement. We will use a 9-point scale (1 = extremely irrelevant to 9 = extremely relevant). Participants' response will be categorized as irrelevant (1-3), equivocal (4-6) and relevant (7-9). For each item, the consensus is reached if at least 80% of the participants' votes fall within the same category. The list of items from the final round will be discussed at face-to-face consensus meeting. Guideline validation. Participants will be authors of scaling studies. We will collect quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (semi-structured interview) data. Descriptive analyses will be conducted on quantitative data and constant comparative techniques on qualitative data.

DISCUSSION

Essential items for reporting scaling studies will contribute to better reporting of scaling studies and facilitate the transparency and scaling of evidence-based health interventions.

Intervention Scalability Assessment Tool: A decision support tool for health policy makers and implementers

Background

Promising health interventions tested in pilot studies will only achieve population-wide impact if they are implemented at scale across communities and health systems. Scaling up effective health interventions is vital as not doing so denies the community the most effective services and programmes. However, there remains a paucity of practical tools to assess the suitability of health interventions for scale-up. The Intervention Scalability Assessment Tool (ISAT) was developed to support policy-makers and practitioners to make systematic assessments of the suitability of health interventions for scale-up.

Methods

The ISAT was developed over three stages; the first stage involved a literature review to identify similar tools and frameworks that could be used to guide scalability assessments, and expert input to develop draft ISAT content. In the second stage, the draft ISAT tool was tested with end users. The third stage involved revising and re-testing the ISAT with end users to further refine the language and structure of the final ISAT.

Results

A variety of information and sources of evidence should be used to complete the ISAT. The ISAT consists of three parts. Part A: ‘setting the scene’ requires consideration of the context in which the intervention is being considered for scale-up and consists of five domains, as follows: (1) the problem; (2) the intervention; (3) strategic/political context; (4) evidence of effectiveness; and (5) intervention costs and benefits. Part B asks users to assess the potential implementation and scale-up requirements within five domains, namely (1) fidelity and adaptation; (2) reach and acceptability; (3) delivery setting and workforce; (4) implementation infrastructure; and (5) sustainability. Part C generates a graphical representation of the strengths and weaknesses of the readiness of the proposed intervention for scale-up. Users are also prompted for a recommendation as to whether the intervention (1) is recommended for scale-up, (2) is promising but needs further information before scaling up, or (3) does not yet merit scale-up.

Conclusion

The ISAT fills an important gap in applied scalability assessment and can become a critical decision support tool for policy-makers and practitioners when selecting health interventions for scale-up. Although the ISAT is designed to be a health policy and practitioner tool, it can also be used by researchers in the design of research to fill important evidence gaps.

Advancing the use of organization theory in implementation science

Healthcare settings and systems have been slow to adopt and implement many effective cancer prevention and control interventions. Understanding the factors that determine successful implementation is essential to accelerating the translation of effective interventions into practice. Many scholars have studied the determinants of implementation, and much of this research has been guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The CFIR categorizes implementation determinants at five levels (characteristics of the intervention, inner setting, individual, processes, and outer setting). Of these five levels, determinants at the level of the outer setting are the least developed. Extensive research in fields other than healthcare suggest that determinants at the level of the outer setting (e.g., funding streams, contracting practices, and public policy) play a central role in shaping when and how an organization implements new structures and practices. Thus, a more comprehensive understanding of outer-setting determinants is critical to efforts to accelerate the implementation of effective cancer control interventions. The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) created a cross-center workgroup to review organizational theories and begin to contribute to the creation of a future framework of constructs related to outer setting determinants. In this paper, we report findings from the review of three organizational theories: Institutional Theory, Transaction Cost Economics, and Contingency Theory. To demonstrate the applicability of this work to implementation science and practice, we have applied findings to three case studies of CPCRN researchers' efforts to implement colorectal cancer screening interventions in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

Implementation outcomes of the national scale up of chlorhexidine cord cleansing in Bangladesh's public health system

Background

Chlorhexidine (CHX) cleansing of the umbilical cord stump is an evidence-based intervention that reduces newborn infections and is recommended for high-mortality settings. Bangladesh is one of the first countries to adopt and scale up CHX nationally. This study evaluates the implementation outcomes for the CHX scale up in Bangladesh and identifies and describes key milestones and processes for the scale up.

Methods

We adapted the RE-AIM framework for this study, incorporating the WHO/ExpandNet model of Scale Up. Adoption and incorporation milestones were assessed through program documents and interviews with national stakeholders (n = 25). Provider training records served as a measure of reach. Implementation was assessed through a survey of readiness to provide CHX at public facilities (n = 4479) and routine data on the proportion of all live births at public facilities (n = 813 607) that received CHX from December 2016 to November 2017. Six rounds of a rolling household survey with recently-delivered women in four districts (n = 6000 to 8000 per round) measured the effectiveness and maintenance of the scale up in increasing population-level coverage of CHX in those districts.

Results

More than 80 000 providers, supervisors, and managers across all 64 districts received a half-day training on CHX and essential newborn care between July 2015 and September 2016. Seventy-four percent of facilities had at least 70% of maternal and newborn health providers with CHX training, while only 46% had CHX in stock on the day of the assessment. The provision of CHX to newborns delivered at facilities steadily increased from 15 059 newborns (24%) in December 2016 to 71 704 (72%) in November 2017. In the final household survey of four districts, 33% of newborns were reported to receive CHX, and babies delivered at public facilities had 5.04 times greater odds (95% CI = 4.45, 5.72) of receiving CHX than those delivered at home.

Conclusions

The scale up of CHX in Bangladesh achieved sustained national implementation in public health facilities. Institutionalization barriers, such as changes to supply logistics systems, had to be addressed before expansion was achieved. For greater public health impact, implementation must reach deliveries that take place at home and in the private sector.

The Meta Salud Diabetes Implementation Study: Qualitative Methods to Assess Integration of a Health Promotion Intervention Into Primary Care to Reduce CVD Risk Among an Underserved Population With Diabetes in Sonora, Mexico

Background: Within health promotion research, there is a need to assess strategies for integration and scale up in primary care settings. Hybrid interventions that combine clinical effectiveness trials with implementation studies can elicit important contextual information on facilitators and barriers to integration within a health care system. This article describes lessons learned in developing and implementing a qualitative study of a cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) among people with diabetes in Sonora, Mexico, 2015–2019.

Methods:The research team worked cooperatively with health center personnel from 12 Centers that implemented the intervention. The study used observations, stakeholder meetings, case studies, staff interviews and decision maker interviews to explore issues such as staff capacity, authority, workflow, space, and conflicting priorities, as well as patients' response to the program within the clinical context and their immediate social environments. Applying a multi-layered contextual framework, two members of the research team coded an initial sample of the data to establish inclusion criteria for each contextual factor. The full team finalized definitions and identified sub nodes for the final codebook.

Results: Characteristics of management, staffing, and the local environment were identified as essential to integration and eventual adoption and scale up across the health system. Issues included absence of standardized training and capacity building in chronic disease and health promotion, inadequate medical supplies, a need for program monitoring and feedback, and lack of interdisciplinary support for center staff. Lack of institutional support stemming from a curative vs. preventive approach to care was a barrier for health promotion efforts. Evolving analysis, interpretation, and discussion resulted in modifications of flexible aspects of the intervention to realities of the health center environment.

Conclusion: This study illustrates that a robust and comprehensive qualitative study of contextual factors across a social ecological spectrum is critical to elucidating factors that will promote future adoption and scale up of health promotion programs in primary care. Application of conceptual frameworks and health behavior theory facilitates identification of facilitators and barriers across contexts.

Trial registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02804698 Registered on June 17, 2016.

The unpredictable journeys of spreading, sustaining and scaling healthcare innovations: a scoping review

Innovation has the potential to improve the quality of care and health service delivery, but maximising the reach and impact of innovation to achieve large-scale health system transformation remains understudied. Interest is growing in three processes of the innovation journey within health systems, namely the spread, sustainability and scale-up (3S) of innovation. Recent reviews examine what we know about these processes. However, there is little research on how to support and operationalise the 3S. This study aims to improve our understanding of the 3S of healthcare innovations. We focus specifically on the definitions of the 3S, the mechanisms that underpin them, and the conditions that either enable or limit their potential. We conducted a scoping review, systematically investigating six bibliographic databases to search, screen and select relevant literature on the 3S of healthcare innovations. We screened 641 papers, then completed a full-text review of 112 identified as relevant based on title and abstract. A total of 24 papers were retained for analysis. Data were extracted and synthesised through descriptive and inductive thematic analysis. From this, we develop a framework of actionable guidance for health system actors aiming to leverage the 3S of innovation across five key areas of focus, as follows: (1) focus on the why, (2) focus on perceived-value and feasibility, (3) focus on what people do, rather than what they should be doing, (4) focus on creating a dialogue between policy and delivery, and (5) focus on inclusivity and capacity building. While there is no standardised approach to foster the 3S of healthcare innovations, a variety of practical frameworks and tools exist to support stakeholders along this journey.

Scaling up eConsult for access to specialists in primary healthcare across four Canadian provinces: study protocol of a multiple case study

BACKGROUND

Canada has been referred to as the land of 'perpetual pilot projects'. Effective innovations often remain small in scale, with limited impact on health systems. Several innovations have been developed in Canada to tackle important challenges such as poor access to services and excessive wait times - one of the most promising innovations that has been piloted is eConsult, which is a model of asynchronous communication that allows primary care providers to electronically consult with specialists regarding their patients' medical issues. eConsult pilot projects have been shown to reduce wait times for specialist care, prevent unnecessary referrals and reduce health system costs. eConsult has been spread throughout Ontario as well as to certain regions in Manitoba, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Our aim is to understand and support the scale-up process of eConsult in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Our specific objectives are to (1) describe the main components of eConsult relevant to the scale-up process in each province; (2) understand the eConsult scale-up process in each province and compare across provinces; (3) identify policy issues and strategies to scaling up eConsult in each province; and (4) foster cross-level and cross-jurisdictional learning on scaling up eConsult.

METHODS

We will conduct a qualitative multiple case study to investigate the scaling up of eConsult in four Canadian provinces using a grey literature review, key stakeholder interviews (10 interviews/province), non-participant observations, focus groups and deliberative dialogues. We will identify the main components of eConsult to be scaled up using logic models (obj. 1). Scaling up processes will be analysed using strategies adapted from process research (obj. 2). Policy issues and strategies to scale-up eConsult will be analysed thematically (obj. 3). Finally, a symposium will foster pan-Canadian learning on the process of scaling up eConsult (obj. 4).

DISCUSSION

This study will likely increase learning and support evidence-based policy-making across participating provinces and may improve the capacity for a pan-Canadian scale-up of eConsult, including in provinces where eConsult has not yet been implemented. This work is essential to inform how similar innovations can reshape our health systems in the evolving information age.

Health TAPESTRY: co-designing interprofessional primary care programs for older adults using the persona-scenario method

Background

Working with patients and health care providers to co-design health interventions is gaining global prominence. While co-design of interventions is important for all patients, it is particularly important for older adults who often experience multiple and complex chronic conditions. Persona-scenarios have been used by designers of technology applications. The purpose of this paper is to explore how a modified approach to the persona-scenario method was used to co-design a complex primary health care intervention (Health TAPESTRY) by and for older adults and providers and the value added of this approach.

Methods

The persona-scenario method involved patient and clinician participants from two academically-linked primary care practices. Local prospective volunteers and community service providers (e.g., home care services, support services) were also recruited. Persona-scenario workshops were facilitated by researchers experienced in qualitative methods. Working mostly in homogenous pairs, participants created a fictitious but authentic persona that represented people like themselves. Core components of the Health TAPESTRY intervention were described. Then, participants created a story (scenario) involving their persona and an aspect of the proposed Health TAPESTRY program (e.g., volunteer roles). Two stages of analysis involved descriptive identification of themes, followed by an interpretive phase to extract possible actions and products related to ideas in each theme.

Results

Fourteen persona-scenario workshops were held involving patients (n = 15), healthcare providers/community care providers (n = 29), community service providers (n = 12), and volunteers (n = 14). Fifty themes emerged under four Health TAPESTRY components and a fifth category - patient. Eight cross cutting themes highlighted areas integral to the intervention. In total, 414 actions were identified and 406 products were extracted under the themes, of which 44.8% of the products (n = 182) were novel. The remaining 224 had been considered by the research team.

Conclusions

The persona-scenario method drew out feasible novel ideas from stakeholders, which expanded on the research team’s original ideas and highlighted interactions among components and stakeholder groups. Many ideas were integrated into the Health TAPESTRY program’s design and implementation. Persona-scenario method added significant value worthy of the added time it required. This method presents a promising alternative to active engagement of multiple stakeholders in the co-design of complex interventions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-019-1013-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A need for implementation science to optimise the use of evidence-based interventions in HIV care: A systematic literature review

To improve health outcomes in people living with HIV, adoption of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) using effective and transferable implementation strategies to optimise the delivery of healthcare is needed. ViiV Healthcare's Positive Pathways initiative was established to support the UNAIDS 90-90-90 goals. A compendium of EBIs was developed to address gaps within the HIV care continuum, yet it was unknown whether efforts existed to adapt and implement these EBIs across diverse clinical contexts. Therefore, this review sought to report on the use of implementation science in adapting HIV continuum of care EBIs. A systematic literature review was undertaken to summarise the evaluation of implementation and effectiveness outcomes, and report on the use of implementation science in HIV care. Ten databases were reviewed to identify studies (time-period: 2013-2018; geographic scope: United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, Australia and Europe; English only publications). Studies were included if they reported on people living with HIV or those at risk of acquiring HIV and used interventions consistent with the EBIs. A broad range of study designs and methods were searched, including hybrid designs. Overall, 118 publications covering 225 interventions consistent with the EBIs were identified. These interventions were evaluated on implementation (N = 183), effectiveness (N = 81), or both outcomes (N = 39). High variability in the methodological approaches was observed. Implementation outcomes were frequently evaluated but use of theoretical frameworks was limited (N = 13). Evaluations undertaken to assess effectiveness were inconsistent, resulting in a range of measures. This review revealed extensive reporting on implementation science as defined using evaluation outcomes. However, high variability was observed in how implementation outcomes and effectiveness were defined, quantified, and reported. A more specific and consistent approach to conducting and reporting on implementation science in HIV could facilitate achievement of UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets.

Implementation Research on Shared Decision Making in Primary Care: Inventory of Intracluster Correlation Coefficients

Background. Cluster randomized trials are important sources of information on evidence-based practices in primary care. However, there are few sources of intracluster correlation coefficients (ICCs) for designing such trials. We inventoried ICC estimates for shared decision-making (SDM) measures in primary care. Methods. Data sources were studies led by the Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Transition. Eligible studies were conducted in primary care, included at least 2 hierarchical levels, included SDM measures for individual units nested under any type of cluster (area, clinic, or provider), and were approved by an ethics committee. We classified measures into decision antecedents, decision processes, and decision outcomes. We used Bayesian random-effect models to estimate mode ICCs and the 95% highest probability density interval (HPDI). We summarized estimates by calculating median and interquartile range (IQR). Results. Six of 14 studies were included. There were 97 ICC estimates for 17 measures. ICC estimates ranged from 0 to 0.5 (median, 0.03; IRQ, 0-0.07). They were higher for process measures (median, 0.03; IQR, 0-0.07) than for antecedent measures (0.02; 0-0.07) or outcome measures (0.02; 0-0.06), for which, respectively, "decisional conflict" (mode, 0.48; 95% HPDI, 0.39-0.57), "reluctance to disclose uncertainty to patients" (0.5; 0.11-0.89), and "quality of the decision" (0.45; 0.14-0.84) had the highest ICCs. ICCs for provider-level clustering (median, 0.06; IQR, 0-0.13) were higher than for other levels. Limitations. This convenience sample of studies may not reflect all potential ICC ranges for primary care SDM measures. Conclusions. Our inventory of ICC estimates for SDM measures in primary care will improve the ease and accuracy of power calculations in cluster randomized trials and inspire its further expansion in SDM contexts.

Economic evaluation of guideline implementation in primary care: a systematic review

Purpose

To review the economic evaluation of the guideline implementation in primary care.

Data sources

Medline and Embase.

Study selection

Electronic search was conducted on April 1, 2019, focusing on studies published in the previous ten years in developed countries about guidelines of non-communicable diseases of adult (≥18 years) population, the interventions targeting the primary care provider. Data extraction was performed by two independent researchers using a Microsoft Access based form.

Results of data synthesis

Among the 1338 studies assessed by title or abstract, 212 qualified for full text reading. From the final 39 clinically eligible studies, 14 reported economic evaluation. Cost consequences analysis, presented in four studies, provided limited information. Cost-benefit analysis was reported in five studies. Patient mediated intervention, and outreach visit applied in two studies showed no saving. Audit resulted significant savings in lipid lowering medication. Audit plus financial intervention was estimated to reduce referrals into secondary care. Analysis of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios was applied in four studies. Educational meeting evaluated in a simulated practice was cost-effective. Educational meeting extended with motivational interview showed no improvement; likewise two studies of multifaceted intervention. Cost-utility analysis of educational meeting supported with other educational materials showed unfavourable outcome.

Conclusion

Only a minor proportion of studies reporting clinical effectiveness of guideline implementation interventions included any type of economic evaluation. Rigorous and standardized cost-effectiveness analysis would be required, supporting decision-making between simple and multifaceted interventions through comparability.

Scaling-up evidence-based obesity interventions: A systematic review assessing intervention adaptations and effectiveness and quantifying the scale-up penalty

Maximizing the benefits of investments in obesity research requires effective interventions to be adopted and disseminated broadly across populations (scaled-up). However, interventions often need considerable adaptation to enable implementation at scale, a process that can reduce the effects of interventions. A systematic review was undertaken for trials that sought to deliver an obesity intervention to populations on a larger scale than a preceding randomized controlled trial (RCT) that established its efficacy. Ten scaled-up obesity interventions (six prevention and four treatment) were included. All trials made adaptations to interventions as part of the scale-up process, with mode of delivery adaptations being most common. A meta-analysis of body mass index (BMI)/BMI z score (zBMI) from three prevention RCTs found no significant benefit of scaled-up interventions relative to control (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.03; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.15, P = 0.639 - I²  = 0.0%). All four treatment interventions reported significant improvement on all measures of weight status. Pooled BMI/zBMI data from prevention trials found significantly lower effects among scaled-up intervention trials than those reported in pre-scale-up efficacy trials (SMD = -0.11; 95% CI, -0.20 to -0.02, P = 0.018 - I²  = 0.0%). Across measures of weight status, physical activity/sedentary behaviour, and nutrition, the effects reported in scaled-up interventions were typically 75% or less of the effects reported in pre-scale-up efficacy trials. The findings underscore the challenge of scaling-up obesity interventions.

Spreading and scaling up innovation and improvement

Disseminating innovation across the healthcare system is challenging but potentially achievable through different logics: mechanistic, ecological, and social, say Trisha Greenhalgh and Chrysanthi Papoutsi

Can the effects of the mobilization of vulnerable elders in Ontario (MOVE ON) implementation be replicated in new settings: an interrupted time series design

BACKGROUND

Bed rest for older hospitalized patients places them at risk for hospital-acquired morbidity. We previously evaluated an early mobilization intervention and found it to be effective at improving mobilization rates and decreasing length of stay on internal medicine units. The aim of this study was to conduct a replication study evaluating the impact of the evidence-informed mobilization intervention on surgery, psychiatry, medicine, and cardiology inpatient units.

METHODS

A multi-component early mobilization intervention was tailored to the local context at seven hospitals in Ontario, Canada. The primary outcome was patient mobilization measured by conducting visual audits twice a week, three times a day. Secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay and discharge destination, which were obtained from hospital decision support data. The study population was patients aged 65 years and older who were admitted to surgery, psychiatry, medicine, and cardiology inpatient units between March and August 2014. Using an interrupted time series design, the intervention was evaluated over three time periods-pre-intervention, during, and post-intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 3098 patients [mean age 78.46 years (SD 8.38)] were included in the overall analysis. There was a significant increase in mobility immediately after the intervention period compared to pre-intervention with a slope change of 1.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-3.08, P-value = 0.0014). A decreasing trend in median length of stay was observed in the majority of the participating sites. Overall, a median length of stay of 26.24 days (95% CI 23.67-28.80) was observed pre-intervention compared to 23.81 days (95% CI 20.13-27.49) during the intervention and 24.69 days (95% CI 22.43-26.95) post-intervention. The overall decrease in median length of stay was associated with the increase in mobility across the sites.

CONCLUSIONS

MOVE increased mobilization and these results were replicated across surgery, psychiatry, medicine, and cardiology inpatient units.

Factors influencing national implementation of innovations within community pharmacy: a systematic review applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Background

To meet emergent healthcare needs, innovations need to be implemented into routine clinical practice. Community pharmacy is increasingly considered a setting through which innovations can be implemented to achieve positive service and clinical outcomes. Small-scale pilot programmes often need scaled up nation-wide to affect population level change. This systematic review aims to identify facilitators and barriers to the national implementation of community pharmacy innovations.

Methods

A systematic review exploring pharmacy staff perspectives of the barriers and facilitators to implementing innovations at a national level was conducted. The databases Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Open Grey were searched and supplemented with additional search mechanisms such as Zetoc alerts. Eligible studies underwent quality assessment, and a directed content analysis approach to data extraction was conducted and aligned to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to facilitate narrative synthesis.

Results

Thirty-nine studies were included: 16 were qualitative, 21 applied a questionnaire design, and 2 were mixed methods. Overarching thematic areas spanning across the CFIR domains were pharmacy staff engagement (e.g. their positive and negative perceptions), operationalisation of innovations (e.g. insufficient resources and training), and external engagement (e.g. the perceptions of patients and other healthcare professionals, and their relationship with the community pharmacy). Study participants commonly suggested improvements in the training offered, in the engagement strategies adopted, and in the design and quality of innovations.

Conclusions

This study’s focus on national innovations resulted in high-level recommendations to facilitate the development of successful national implementation strategies. These include (1) more robust piloting of innovations, (2) improved engagement strategies to increase awareness and acceptance of innovations, (3) promoting whole-team involvement within pharmacies to overcome time constraints, and (4) sufficient pre-implementation evaluation to gauge acceptance and appropriateness of innovations within real-world settings. The findings highlight the international challenge of balancing the professional, clinical, and commercial obligations within community pharmacy practice. A preliminary theory of how salient factors influence national implementation in the community pharmacy setting has been developed, with further research necessary to understand how the influence of these factors may differ within varying contexts.

Trial registration

A protocol for this systematic review was developed and uploaded onto the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews database (Registration number: CRD42016038876).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0867-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Optimizing medication use through a synergistic technology testing process integrating implementation science to drive effectiveness and facilitate scale

OBJECTIVES

1) To describe a synergistic technology testing process (STTP) that integrates traditional technology assessment with implementation science principles to drive uptake, enhance outcomes, and facilitate scaling of medication optimization health information technology solutions; and 2) to illustrate the application of the STTP using an example that involves designing and testing a medication therapy problem (MTP) platform for use by pharmacists in primary care.

SUMMARY

Optimizing medication services requires supportive technologies that have been fully tested before release. Current testing approaches are not sufficient to produce the information needed to accelerate uptake and drive impact. Implementation science principles can supplement the traditional testing process by broadening its focus to include designing a truly usable technology, attending to contextual influences, studying the implementation process, and assessing the technology for its scalability. The STTP is an early attempt at outlining the integration of traditional technology testing with implementation science for pharmacy practice.

CONCLUSION

The potential impact of technology-supported medication optimization solutions to improve patient outcomes, enhance quality of care, and reduce costs could be substantial. Accelerating uptake, driving impact, and facilitating scaling will require innovative testing paradigms that result in evidence-based technologies that can feasibly be implemented in real-world settings.

The Sustain and Spread Framework: strategies for sustaining and spreading nutrition care improvements in acute care based on thematic analysis from the More-2-Eat study

BACKGROUND

Successful improvements in health care practice need to be sustained and spread to have maximum benefit. The rationale for embedding sustainability from the beginning of implementation is well recognized; however, strategies to sustain and spread successful initiatives are less clearly described. The aim of this study is to identify strategies used by hospital staff and management to sustain and spread successful nutrition care improvements in Canadian hospitals.

METHODS

The More-2-Eat project used participatory action research to improve nutrition care practices. Five hospital units in four Canadian provinces had one year to improve the detection, treatment, and monitoring of malnourished patients. Each hospital had a champion and interdisciplinary site implementation team to drive changes. After the year (2016) of implementing new practices, site visits were completed at each hospital to conduct key informant interviews (n = 45), small group discussions (4 groups; n = 10), and focus groups (FG) (11 FG; n = 71) (total n = 126) with staff and management to identify enablers and barriers to implementing and sustaining the initiative. A year after project completion (early 2018) another round of interviews (n = 12) were conducted to further understand sustaining and spreading the initiative to other units or hospitals. Verbatim transcription was completed for interviews. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts, FG notes, and context memos was completed.

RESULTS

After implementation, sites described a culture change with respect to nutrition care, where new activities were viewed as the expected norm and best practice. Strategies to sustain changes included: maintaining the new routine; building intrinsic motivation; continuing to collect and report data; and engaging new staff and management. Strategies to spread included: being responsive to opportunities; considering local context and readiness; and making it easy to spread. Strategies that supported both sustaining and spreading included: being and staying visible; and maintaining roles and supporting new champions.

CONCLUSIONS

The More-2-Eat project led to a culture of nutrition care that encouraged lasting positive impact on patient care. Strategies to spread and sustain these improvements are summarized in the Sustain and Spread Framework, which has potential for use in other settings and implementation initiatives.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospectively registered ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800304 , June 7, 2016.

Assessment of scalability of evidence-based innovations in community-based primary health care: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

In 2013, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research funded 12 community-based primary health care research teams to develop evidence-based innovations. We aimed to explore the scalability of these innovations.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we invited the 12 teams to rate their evidence-based innovations for scalability. Based on a systematic review, we developed a self-administered questionnaire with 16 scalability assessment criteria grouped into 5 dimensions (theory, impact, coverage, setting and cost). Teams completed a questionnaire for each of their innovations. We analyzed the data using simple frequency counts and hierarchical cluster analysis. We calculated the mean number and standard deviation (SD) of innovations that met criteria within each dimension that included more than 1 criterion. The analysis unit was the innovation.

RESULTS

The 11 responding teams evaluated 33 evidence-based innovations (median 3, range 1-8 per team). The innovations focused on access to care and chronic disease prevention and management, and varied from health interventions to methodological innovations. Most of the innovations were health interventions (n = 21), followed by analytical methods (n = 4), conceptual frameworks (n = 4), measures (n = 3) and strategies to build research capacity (n = 1). Most (29) met criteria in the theory dimension, followed by impact (mean 22.3 [SD 5.6] innovations per dimension), setting (mean 21.7 [SD 8.5]), cost (mean 17.5 [SD 2.1]) and coverage (mean 14.0 [SD 4.1]). On average, the innovations met 10 of the 16 criteria. Adoption was the least assessed criterion (n = 9). Most (20) of the innovations were highly ranked for scalability.

INTERPRETATION

Scalability varied among innovations, which suggests that readiness for scale up was suboptimal for some innovations. Coverage remained largely unaddressed; further investigation of this critical dimension is necessary.

Pilot cluster randomized controlled trial of a complex intervention to improve management of vertigo in primary care (PRIMA-Vertigo): study protocol

OBJECTIVES

Vertigo and dizziness are highly prevalent symptoms in primary care, frequently misdiagnosed. Based on a thorough need assessment, INDICORE (INform, DIagnose, COmmunicate, REfer), an evidence-based complex intervention has been developed to transfer knowledge of specialized tertiary clinics to primary care providers (PCPs), improve the referral process and, ultimately, improve the functioning and quality of life of patients with vertigo/dizziness. The main objective of the PRIMA-Vertigo pilot study is to examine whether the INDICORE intervention is feasible and sufficiently promising to warrant a larger trial.

METHODS

We plan to perform a single-blind, pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled pilot study with an accompanying process evaluation. PCPs will be the cluster units of randomization. Patients who consult these PCPs because of vertigo/dizziness symptoms will be included consecutively and considered the units of analysis. The intervention will be multi-faceted training on diagnostics targeted at the PCPs, supported by patient education material and a newly developed tool to structure the referral process. To balance the influence of non-specific effects, all clusters will receive generic communication training.

EXPECTED RESULTS

The process evaluation aims to provide results on the acceptability and feasibility of the INDICORE intervention components to PCPs and patients. Additionally, this study will provide a first estimate of the likely effectiveness of the intervention on patients' quality of life, functioning and participation.

CONCLUSIONS

The PRIMA-Vertigo pilot study will allow further tailoring of the INDICORE intervention to stakeholder needs before its effectiveness is evaluated in a large-scale main study.