Barriers and enablers to conducting cluster randomized control trials in hospitals: A theory-informed scoping review

Optimizing the implementation of a multisite feasibility trial of a mind-body program in acute orthopedic trauma

The Toolkit for Optimal Recovery (TOR) is a mind-body program for patients with acute orthopedic injuries who are at risk for persistent pain/disability. In preparation for a multisite feasibility trial of TOR at three orthopedic trauma centers, we aim to qualitatively identify barriers and facilitators to study implementation and strategies to mitigate the implementation barriers and leverage facilitators.We conducted 18 live video focus groups among providers and three one-on-one interviews with department chiefs at Level 1 trauma centers in three geographically diverse sites (N = 79 participants). Using a content analysis approach, we detected the site-specific barriers and facilitators of implementation of TOR clinical trial. We organized the data according to 26 constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), mapped to three Proctor implementation outcomes relevant to the desired study outcomes (acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility). Across the three sites, we mapped six of the CFIR constructs to acceptability, eight to appropriateness, and three to feasibility. Prominent perceived barriers across all three sites were related to providers' lack of knowledge/comfort addressing psychosocial factors, and organizational cultures of prioritizing workflow efficiency over patients' psychosocial needs (acceptability), poor fit between TOR clinical trial and the fast-paced clinic structure as well as basic needs of some patients (appropriateness), and limited resources (feasibility). Suggestions to maximize the implementation of the TOR trial included provision of knowledge/tools to improve providers' confidence, streamlining study recruitment procedures, creating a learning collaborative, tailoring the study protocol based on local needs assessments, exercising flexibility in conducting research, dedicating research staff, and identifying/promoting champions and using novel incentive structures with regular check-ins, while keeping study procedures as nonobtrusive and language as de-stigmatizing as possible. These data could serve as a blueprint for implementation of clinical research and innovations in orthopedic and other medical settings.

Barriers and Facilitators to Supportive Care Implementation in Advanced Disease Prostate Cancer Survivors: A Theory-Informed Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Individualized supportive care is recommended to manage the debilitating effects of advanced prostate cancer and its treatments. Yet, the implementation of supportive care in practice remains inconsistent.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to synthesize the barriers and facilitators to implementing supportive care interventions after identifying supportive care interventions for advanced prostate cancer survivors.

METHODS

PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL Complete, ProQuest, and PsycINFO were searched for relevant studies published between 2011 and 2020. Studies were included if they reported on a supportive care intervention and included a description of implementation barriers and/or facilitators. The Theoretical Domains Framework was used to characterize implementation barriers and facilitators.

RESULTS

Of the 620 articles identified, 13 met all prespecified inclusion criteria. Primary barriers were related to the domains of environmental context and resources (eg, limited resources), knowledge (eg, insufficient knowledge on efficacy of supportive care), and beliefs about capabilities (eg, lack of confidence in materials). Facilitators fell under environmental context and resources (partnerships with local services), reinforcement (eg, partners inclusion), and skills (eg, delivery by professionals).

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review highlights barriers and facilitators that affect supportive care implementation. Future research that focuses on overcoming barriers and maximizing facilitators is needed to improve, modify, or supplement existing supportive care implementation practices.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

As the number of advanced prostate cancer survivors continues to increase, supportive care must become the standard of care. Future interventions must incorporate increased knowledge and funding, alternative delivery models, and consistent use of specialty nurses.

Strategies for facilitating the delivery of cluster randomized trials in hospitals: A study informed by the CFIR-ERIC matching tool

BACKGROUND

Recruitment and engagement of clusters in a cluster randomized controlled trial can sometimes prove challenging. Identification of successful or unsuccessful strategies may be beneficial in guiding future researchers in conducting their cluster randomized controlled trial. This study aimed to identify strategies that could be used to facilitate the delivery of cluster randomized controlled trials in hospitals.

METHODS

The study employed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change matching tool. The barriers and enablers to cluster randomized controlled trial conduct identified in our previously conducted studies served as a means of determinant identification for the conduct of cluster randomized controlled trials. These determinants were mapped to Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research constructs and then matched to Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change compilation strategies using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change matching tool.

RESULTS

The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change strategies matched to at least one determinant Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research construct were as follows: (1) 'Identify and prepare champions', (2) 'Conduct local needs assessment', (3) 'Conduct educational meetings', (4) 'Inform local opinion leaders', (5) 'Build a coalition', (6) 'Promote adaptability', (7) 'Develop a formal implementation blueprint', (8) 'Involve patients/consumers and family members', (9) 'Obtain and use patients/consumers and family feedback', (10) 'Develop educational materials', (11) 'Promote network weaving', (12) 'Distribute educational materials', (13) 'Access new funding' and (14) 'Develop academic partnerships'.

CONCLUSION

This study was intended as a step in the research agenda aimed at facilitating cluster randomized controlled trial delivery in hospitals and can act as a resource for future researchers when planning their cluster randomized controlled trial, with the expectation that the strategies identified here will be tailored to each context.