Five Challenges in the Design and Conduct of IS Trials for HIV Prevention and Treatment

How does facilitation in healthcare work? Using mechanism mapping to illuminate the black box of a meta-implementation strategy

BACKGROUND

Healthcare facilitation, an implementation strategy designed to improve the uptake of effective clinical innovations in routine practice, has produced promising yet mixed results in randomized implementation trials and has not been fully researched across different contexts.

OBJECTIVE

Using mechanism mapping, which applies directed acyclic graphs that decompose an effect of interest into hypothesized causal steps and mechanisms, we propose a more concrete description of how healthcare facilitation works to inform its further study as a meta-implementation strategy.

METHODS

Using a modified Delphi consensus process, co-authors developed the mechanistic map based on a three-step process. First, they developed an initial logic model by collectively reviewing the literature and identifying the most relevant studies of healthcare facilitation components and mechanisms to date. Second, they applied the logic model to write vignettes describing how facilitation worked (or did not) based on recent empirical trials that were selected via consensus for inclusion and diversity in contextual settings (US, international sites). Finally, the mechanistic map was created based on the collective findings from the vignettes.

FINDINGS

Theory-based healthcare facilitation components informing the mechanistic map included staff engagement, role clarification, coalition-building through peer experiences and identifying champions, capacity-building through problem solving barriers, and organizational ownership of the implementation process. Across the vignettes, engagement of leaders and practitioners led to increased socialization of the facilitator's role in the organization. This in turn led to clarifying of roles and responsibilities among practitioners and identifying peer experiences led to increased coherence and sense-making of the value of adopting effective innovations. Increased trust develops across leadership and practitioners through expanded capacity in adoption of the effective innovation by identifying opportunities that mitigated barriers to practice change. Finally, these mechanisms led to eventual normalization and ownership of the effective innovation and healthcare facilitation process.

IMPACT

Mapping methodology provides a novel perspective of mechanisms of healthcare facilitation, notably how sensemaking, trust, and normalization contribute to quality improvement. This method may also enable more efficient and impactful hypothesis-testing and application of complex implementation strategies, with high relevance for lower-resourced settings, to inform effective innovation uptake.

A Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Examination of Positive Health Check: Implementation Results From a Type 1 Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Trial

BACKGROUND

Positive Health Check is an evidence-based video doctor intervention developed for improving the medication adherence, retention in care, and viral load suppression of people with HIV receiving clinical care.

SETTING

Four HIV primary care clinics within the United States.

METHODS

As part of a type 1 hybrid trial, a mixed-methods approach was used to longitudinally assess the following 3 key implementation constructs over a 23-month period: innovation-values fit (ie, the extent to which staff perceive innovation use will foster the fulfillment of their values), organizational readiness for change (ie, the extent to which organizational members are psychologically and behaviorally prepared to implement organizational change), and implementation climate (ie, the extent to which implementation is expected, supported, and rewarded). Quantitative mixed-effects regression analyses were conducted to assess changes over time in these constructs. Qualitative analyses were integrated to help provide validation and understanding.

RESULTS

Innovation-values fit and organizational readiness for change were found to be high and relatively stable. However, significant curvilinear change over time was found for implementation climate. Based on the qualitative data, implementation climate declined toward the end of implementation because of decreased engagement from clinic champions and differences in priorities between research and clinic staff.

CONCLUSIONS

The Positive Health Check intervention was found to fit within HIV primary care service settings, but there were some logistical challenges that needed to be addressed. Additionally, even within the context of an effectiveness trial, significant and nonlinear change in implementation climate should be expected over time.

The Setting-Intervention Fit of Nine Evidence-Based Interventions for Substance Use Disorders Within HIV Service Organizations Across the United States: Results of a National Stakeholder-Engaged Real-Time Delphi Study

BACKGROUND

Given substance use disorders (SUDs) among people with HIV are highly prevalent, integrating SUD services within HIV service settings is needed to help end the HIV epidemic. In this study, we assessed the setting-intervention fit (SIF) of 9 evidence-based SUD interventions: acamprosate, disulfiram, oral naltrexone, injectable naltrexone, oral buprenorphine, injectable buprenorphine, contingency management, motivational interviewing, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).

SETTING

Clinical and nonclinical HIV service organizations (HSOs) in the United States.

METHODS

In May 2020, a stakeholder-engaged real-time Delphi was completed with 202 HSOs. HSO respondents rated the extent to which each SUD intervention was fundable, implementable, retainable, sustainable, scalable, and timely for their HSO, and these 6 items were summed into an SIF score (possible range of 0-18).

RESULTS

Motivational interviewing had the highest average SIF score (11.42), with SIF scores above the midpoint (9.5) for clinical (11.51) and nonclinical HSOs (11.36). For nonclinical HSOs, none of the other interventions were above the midpoint. For clinical HSOs, the average SIF scores were above the midpoint for CBT (10.97) and oral buprenorphine (9.51). Multivariate regression analyses, which controlled for characteristics of the HSO respondent, revealed geographic region of the United States and whether the HSO currently offered any substance use services as 2 of the best predictors of SIF scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Notwithstanding the need to improve the SIF for the other evidence-based SUD interventions, motivational interviewing, CBT, and oral buprenorphine are currently the evidence-based SUD interventions with greatest perceived fit for integration within HSOs in the United States.