The Acute Aphasia IMplementation Study (AAIMS): a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial

Allied Health Clinicians' Uptake of Evidence in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review of Determinants Targeted in Implementation Studies

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether targeting specific implementation determinants is associated with allied health clinicians' uptake of evidence when implemented within stroke rehabilitation settings.

DATA SOURCES

7 key databases were searched to identify articles published between 1990 and 2022 for inclusion. Reference lists of relevant articles were hand searched.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were independently screened by 2 authors and included if the implementation intervention targeted allied health clinical practice in any stroke rehabilitation context and reported at least 1 quantitative measure of evidence uptake. Thirty studies met inclusion criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were independently extracted by the first and second author. Implementation outcomes for each study were categorized as either mostly successful, partially successful, or not successful based on the degree of evidence uptake achieved. Determinants targeted were categorized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

DATA SYNTHESIS

Patterns between the degree of evidence uptake and determinants targeted across studies were analyzed by the first and second authors in 1 of 3 groups: A (pre-post statistical analysis), B (pre-post descriptive analysis), or C (post-only descriptive analysis). Patterns between evidence uptake and determinants targeted were first identified within groups A and B, with group C consulted to support findings. All studies categorized as "mostly successful" targeted facilitation in combination with establishing face-to-face networks and communication strategies. Conversely, no studies rated "not successful" targeted either of these determinants. Studies rated "partially successful" targeted either 1, but seldom both, of these determinants.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has provided descriptive evidence of determinants which may be important to target for allied health clinicians' uptake of evidence within stroke rehabilitation settings.

Pilot trial of the online implementation intervention Aphasia Nexus: Connecting Evidence to Practice

PURPOSE

Aphasia Nexus: Connecting Evidence to Practice is a theoretically-based online implementation intervention designed to overcome the barriers related to the implementation of intensive and comprehensive aphasia services. The objective was to establish the feasibility of incorporating Aphasia Nexus within routine clinical practice through an evaluation of: (1) its potential to positively influence the intensity and/or comprehensiveness of aphasia services; (2) the ability of selected outcome measures to capture changes to factors influencing implementation; and (3) the acceptability of the website to on-site speech-language pathologists (SLPs).

METHOD

A single arm pre-post pilot trial was conducted within an Australian health service. The design collected qualitative and quantitative pre-post data in the form of therapy logs, behaviour change questionnaires, and a post-intervention focus group. Data were collected one week prior to, and one week following, a 12 week implementation period where participating SLPs (n = 5) were provided access to the Aphasia Nexus website.

RESULT

Quantitative data revealed improvements in the median time per patient with aphasia from 65 to 115 minutes per week (intensity/dose), an additional 50 minutes per week. SLPs trialled at least one new therapy approach (Attentive Reading and Constrained Summarisation) and service delivery model (group therapy) representing an increase in the comprehensiveness of their services to patients. SLPs perceived a reduction in the barriers associated with the promotion of new aphasia services. Qualitative analysis of focus group discussion revealed that participants considered Aphasia Nexus in the overarching theme of practice efficiency (obtaining the best outcome from the least amount of effort) and the sub-themes of accessible therapy resources and the prioritisation of time.

CONCLUSION

Overall, Aphasia Nexus was considered a useful clinical tool with the potential to positively influence clinical aphasia practice. These results will inform further implementation intervention refinements and will inform the methodology of future research.

Improving communicative access and patient experience in acute stroke care: An implementation journey

INTRODUCTION

Patient experience for people with aphasia/families in acute care is frequently reported as negative, with communication barriers contributing to adverse events and significant long-term physical and psychosocial sequelae. Although the effectiveness of providing supported communication training and resources for health care providers in the stroke system is well documented, there is less evidence of implementation strategies for sustainable system change. This paper describes an implementation process targeting two specific areas: 1) improving Stroke Team communication with patients with aphasia, and 2) helping the Stroke Team provide support to families. The project aimed for practical sustainable solutions with potential contribution toward the development of an implementation practice model adaptable for other acute stroke contexts.

METHODS

The project was designed to create a communicatively accessible acute care hospital unit for people with aphasia. The process involved a collaboration between a Stroke Team covering two units/wards led by nurse managers (19 participants), and a community-based Aphasia Team with expertise in Supported Conversation for Adults with Aphasia (SCA™) - an evidence-based method to reduce language barriers and increase communicative access for people with aphasia. Development was loosely guided by the integrated knowledge translation (iKT) model, and information regarding the implementation process was gathered in developmental fashion over several years.

OUTCOMES

Examples of outcomes related to the two target areas include provision of accessible information about aphasia to patients as well as development of two new products - a short virtual SCA™ eLearning module relevant to acute care, and a pamphlet for families on how to keep conversation alive. Potential strategies for sustaining a focus on aphasia and communicative access emerged as part of the implementation process.

CONCLUSIONS

This implementation journey allowed for a deeper understanding of the competing demands of the acute care context and highlighted the need for further work on sustainability of communicative access interventions for stroke patients with aphasia and their families.

Interventions for the uptake of evidence-based recommendations in acute stroke settings

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of research evidence to guide acute stroke care. Receiving care in a stroke unit improves access to recommended evidence-based therapies and patient outcomes. However, even in stroke units, evidence-based recommendations are inconsistently delivered by healthcare workers to patients with stroke. Implementation interventions are strategies designed to improve the delivery of evidence-based care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of implementation interventions (compared to no intervention or another implementation intervention) on adherence to evidence-based recommendations by health professionals working in acute stroke units. Secondary objectives were to assess factors that may modify the effect of these interventions, and to determine if single or multifaceted strategies are more effective in increasing adherence with evidence-based recommendations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute and ProQuest databases to 13 April 2022. We searched the grey literature and trial registries and reviewed reference lists of all included studies, relevant systematic reviews and primary studies; contacted corresponding authors of relevant studies and conducted forward citation searching of the included studies. There were no restrictions on language and publication date.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials. Participants were health professionals providing care to patients in acute stroke units; implementation interventions (i.e. strategies to improve delivery of evidence-based care) were compared to no intervention or another implementation intervention. We included studies only if they reported on our primary outcome which was quality of care, as measured by adherence to evidence-based recommendations, in order to address the review aim.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We compared single implementation interventions to no intervention, multifaceted implementation interventions to no intervention, multifaceted implementation interventions compared to single implementation interventions and multifaceted implementation interventions to another multifaceted intervention. Our primary outcome was adherence to evidence-based recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven cluster-randomised trials with 42,489 patient participants from 129 hospitals, conducted in Australia, the UK, China, and the Netherlands. Health professional participants (numbers not specified) included nursing, medical and allied health professionals. Interventions in all studies included implementation strategies targeting healthcare workers; three studies included delivery arrangements, no studies used financial arrangements or governance arrangements. Five trials compared a multifaceted implementation intervention to no intervention, two trials compared one multifaceted implementation intervention to another multifaceted implementation intervention. No included studies compared a single implementation intervention to no intervention or to a multifaceted implementation intervention. Quality of care outcomes (proportions of patients receiving evidence-based care) were included in all included studies. All studies had low risks of selection bias and reporting bias, but high risk of performance bias. Three studies had high risks of bias from non-blinding of outcome assessors or due to analyses used. We are uncertain whether a multifaceted implementation intervention leads to any change in adherence to evidence-based recommendations compared with no intervention (risk ratio (RR) 1.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 3.61; 4 trials; 76 clusters; 2144 participants, I2 =92%, very low-certainty evidence). Looking at two specific processes of care, multifaceted implementation interventions compared to no intervention probably lead to little or no difference in the proportion of patients with ischaemic stroke who received thrombolysis (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.37, 2 trials; 32 clusters; 1228 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), but probably do increase the proportion of patients who receive a swallow screen within 24 hours of admission (RR 6.76, 95% CI 4.44 to 10.76; 1 trial; 19 clusters; 1,804 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Multifaceted implementation interventions probably make little or no difference in reducing the risk of death, disability or dependency compared to no intervention (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; 3 trials; 51 clusters ; 1228 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably make little or no difference to hospital length of stay compared with no intervention (difference in absolute change 1.5 days; 95% CI -0.5 to 3.5; 1 trial; 19 clusters; 1804 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We do not know if a multifaceted implementation intervention compared to no intervention result in changes to resource use or health professionals' knowledge because no included studies collected these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether a multifaceted implementation intervention compared to no intervention improves adherence to evidence-based recommendations in acute stroke settings, because the certainty of evidence is very low.

Management of communication disability in the first 90 days after stroke: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

People with communication disability after stroke need interventions to optimise healthcare communication and rehabilitation outcomes. Current evidence syntheses do not adequately inform the management of communication disability during the first 90 days post-stroke.

PURPOSE

To explore the scope of literature for the management of communication disability in the first 90 days after stroke.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scoping review was conducted using a systematic keyword search of six databases. A descriptive synthesis was generated using communication-related domains related to the biopsychosocial framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF).

RESULTS

A total of 129 studies met eligibility criteria. Aphasia was the most frequently addressed communication disability after stroke (76/129 studies) with a paucity of evidence investigating other acquired neurogenic communication impairments. Management predominantly focused on communication-related: body functions and structures (62 studies) (e.g., linguistic-behavioural therapies), followed by environmental factors (39 studies) (e.g., communication partner training/support); activities and participation (15 studies) (e.g., augmentative and alternative communication); and personal factors (13 studies) (e.g., assessment of depression after aphasia).

CONCLUSION

A coordinated, integrated approach to developing and testing acute and subacute interventions for all communication disabilities across all communication-related domains is required.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONInterdisciplinary stroke clinicians need to manage communication disabilities in the first 90 days after stroke to optimise healthcare communication and rehabilitation outcomes.There is some evidence to guide clinicians in aphasia management but less in other disabilities of speech and cognitive functioning.Most interventions to inform clinical practice address communication-related body functions and structures (e.g., linguistic and speech therapies). Clinicians need to address all domains and more evidence is needed to address environmental factors (e.g., communication support); activities and participation (e.g., person-centred goal setting); and personal factors (e.g., psychological care).

Tailored GuideLine Implementation in STrokE Rehabilitation (GLISTER) in Germany. Protocol of a Mixed Methods Study Using the Behavior Change Wheel and the Theoretical Domains Framework

Objective

Evidence-based guidelines are important for informing clinical decision-making and improving patient outcomes. There is inconsistent usage of guidelines among physical therapists involved in stroke rehabilitation, suggesting the existence of a gap between theory and practice. Addressing the German guideline "evidence-based rehabilitation of mobility after stroke (ReMoS)," the aims of this project are (1) to describe the current physical therapy practice within the context of stroke rehabilitation in Germany, (2) to evaluate barriers and facilitators of guideline usage, (3) to develop, and (4) to pilot test a theory-based, tailored implementation intervention for the benefit of guideline recommendations.

Materials and Methods

This study uses a stepwise mixed methods approach for implementing a local guideline. A self-reported online questionnaire will be used to survey the current physical therapy practice in stroke rehabilitation. The same survey and systematic-mixed methods review will be used to evaluate the barriers and facilitators of guideline usage quantitatively. Semi-structured interviews will add a qualitative perspective on factors that influence ReMoS guideline implementation. The Behavior Change Wheel and Theoretical Domains Framework will be used to support the development of a tailored implementation intervention which will be pilot tested in a controlled study. Patient and physical therapy-related outcomes, as well as the appropriateness, such as acceptance and feasibility of the tailored implementation intervention, will be analyzed.

Conclusion

This will be the first endeavor to implement a guideline in German stroke rehabilitation with a focus on changing care provider behavior based on the knowledge of current practice and determining factors using a tailored and theory-based intervention.

Implementation Science Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to complete a scoping review of implementation science (IS) research in communication sciences and disorders (CSD) over time and to determine characteristics of IS research in CSD.

METHOD

A scoping review was conducted of PubMed and Education Resources Information Center for sources published in English that (a) included CSD practitioners, (b) addressed IS research, and (c) identified a specific evidence-based practice. Resulting sources were systematically examined for study aim, patient populations, implementation framework utilized, setting of the study, implementation strategy examined, and implementation outcome measured.

RESULTS

The majority of the 82 studies that underwent a full-text review (80.5%) were published in 2014 or later. One fourth of the studies were concept papers, and another one fourth focused on context assessment (25.6% of studies, each), 11% focused on designing implementation strategies, and 36.6% focused on testing implementation strategies. The patient population most frequently represented aphasia (21.3%), and most studies (34.4%) were conducted in inpatient medical settings. Nearly half (42.6%) of the nonconcept studies lacked an IS framework. Among implementation strategies identified, approximately one third of studies focused on education and/or training plus another strategy and one fourth focused on education and/or training alone. Implementation outcomes measured typically represented early stages of implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review of IS research in CSD described the landscape of IS studies in CSD. IS is intersecting with CSD at a rapid rate, especially since 2014. Future IS research in CSD should adopt an implementation framework a priori and consider the broad range of implementation strategies and outcomes to support the uptake of research into typical practice settings.

Can targeted interventions change the factors influencing variation in management of infants with bronchiolitis? A survey of Australian and New Zealand clinicians: A paediatric research in emergency departments international collaborative (PREDICT) study

AIM

This study aimed to determine whether targeted interventions, proven to be effective at improving evidence-based bronchiolitis management, changed factors previously found to influence variation in bronchiolitis management.

METHODS

This survey assessed change in factors influencing clinicians' (nurses and doctors) bronchiolitis management at baseline and post-intervention in a cluster randomised controlled trial of targeted, theory-informed interventions aiming to de-implement non-evidence-based bronchiolitis management (no use of chest X-ray, salbutamol, antibiotics, glucocorticoids and adrenaline). Survey questions addressed previously identified factors influencing bronchiolitis management from six Theoretical Domains Framework domains (knowledge; skills; beliefs about consequences; social/professional role and identity; environmental context and resources; social influences). Data analysis was descriptive.

RESULTS

A total of 1958 surveys (baseline = 996; post-intervention = 962) were completed by clinicians from the emergency department and paediatric inpatient units from 26 hospitals (intervention = 13; control = 13). Targeted bronchiolitis interventions significantly increased knowledge of the Australasian Bronchiolitis Guideline (intervention clinicians = 74%, control = 39%, difference = 34.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 25.6-43.8%), improved skills in diagnosing (intervention doctors = 89%, control = 76%, difference = 12.6%, 95% CI = 6.2-19%) and managing bronchiolitis (intervention doctors = 87%, control = 76%, difference = 9.9%, 95% CI = 3.7-16.1%), positively influenced both beliefs about consequences regarding salbutamol use (intervention clinicians = 49%, control = 29%, difference = 20.3%, 95% CI = 13.2-27.4%) and nurses questioning non-evidence-based bronchiolitis management (chest X-ray: intervention = 71%, control = 51%, difference = 20.8%, 95% CI = 11.4-30.2%; glucocorticoids: intervention = 64%, control = 40%, difference = 21.9%, 95% CI = 10.4-33.5%) (social/professional role and identity). A 14% improvement in evidence-based bronchiolitis management favouring intervention hospitals was demonstrated in the cluster randomised controlled trial.

CONCLUSION

Targeted interventions positively changed factors influencing bronchiolitis management resulting in improved evidence-based bronchiolitis care. This study has important implications for improving bronchiolitis management and future development of interventions to de-implement low-value care.

Sustaining acute speech-language therapists' implementation of recommended aphasia practices: A mixed methods follow-up evaluation of a cluster RCT

BACKGROUND

While implementation studies in aphasia management have shown promising improvements to clinical practice, it is currently unknown if aphasia implementation outcomes are sustained and what factors may influence clinical sustainability.

AIMS

To evaluate the sustainment (i.e., sustained improvement of aphasia management practices and domains influencing clinicians' practice) and sustainability (i.e., factors influencing sustainability) outcomes of the Acute Aphasia IMplementation Study (AAIMS).

METHODS & PROCEDURES

A convergent interactive mixed-methods sustainability evaluation was conducted on two previously delivered implementation interventions (AAIMS). The AAIMS interventions were targeted at improving either written aphasia-friendly information provision (Intervention A) or collaborative goal-setting (Intervention B). Outcomes were collected 2 and 3 years post-implementation, addressing the research questions of sustainment (e.g., medical record audits and behavioural constructs questionnaires) and sustainability (e.g., post-study focus groups and organizational readiness surveys). Quantitative sustainability data were compared with post-implementation data, allowing for sustainment to be determined. Clinicians' perspectives on sustainability outcomes and challenges were analysed using framework analysis and integrated with the quantitative findings.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

A total of 35 speech-language therapists (SLTs) from four hospitals participated. The medical records of 79 patients were audited in the sustainability period compared with the 107 medical records audited during AAIMS. Overall, there was variable sustainment of the target behaviours; implementation for Intervention A was not sustained at either sustainability time point (2018 = 47.8% decrease; 2019 = 22.78% decrease), but implementation for Intervention B was sustained at both time points (2018 = 7.78% increase; 2019 = 18.1% increase). There was a pattern of sustained change in the behaviour change domains targeted by the implementation interventions, where scores of the targeted domains increased over time (0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.05 to 0.30) and scores of the non-targeted domains declined (-0.03, 95% CI = -0.11 to 0.04). Factors influencing sustainability were mainly related to 'processes', 'the inner context' and 'SLT characteristics', and these interacted dynamically to account for variation between teams.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

Implementation outcomes (i.e., practice changes) were not sustained to the same level for three of the four participating SLT teams, with variable or partial sustainment most common. While the factors influencing sustainability differed depending on the context and individuals involved, the most important factor influencing outcomes seemed to be the level to which behaviour-change processes and strategies were embedded within the SLT department. Future implementation studies should incorporate sustainability measures from the onset and include follow-ups and monitoring systems to help support sustained change in the long term.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject In post-stroke aphasia management, there are few examples of long-term sustainability of implementation outcomes. It is therefore unknown what factors are potentially important to sustain implementation of best-practice recommendations in aphasia services. What this paper adds to existing knowledge There is potential for implementation outcomes to be sustained long term, but sustainment is impacted by a range of factors. Ongoing facilitation or follow-up after initial implementation may to useful to promote sustainment, but is not essential if processes are sufficiently embedded. Gradual implementation into practice may lead to better sustainment than rapid change that is quickly forgotten. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Future implementation efforts should incorporate sustainability measures from the onset. Applying a sustainability framework was useful to guide evaluations and explore factors influencing the sustainment outcomes and is recommended for those interested in sustainability. Results from our evaluation can be used to guide refinement and support future development of sustainable implementation interventions.

Treatment fidelity of technology-enhanced reading therapy (CommuniCATE) for people with aphasia

BACKGROUND

Treatment fidelity (TF), that is, the degree to which the treatment delivery has adhered to protocol, is an important aspect of establishing treatment validity and reliability. Research has shown that establishing TF is only done in a small percentage of aphasia treatment studies.

AIMS

This project supports the work of the CommuniCATE study, which explored the benefits of technology-enhanced aphasia therapy on participants' reading, writing, speech and conversation skills. It examines the TF of the Reading strand of the CommuniCATE project by assessing whether the therapy adhered to the protocol. The following research questions were asked: Does treatment delivery adhere to treatment protocol? Does the degree of TF vary according to the person delivering the therapy (i.e. student therapist or qualified therapist)? Does the degree of TF vary over time (early treatment sessions compared with later treatment sessions)? Was the checklist tool reliable?

METHODS & PROCEDURES

This study assessed the fidelity of 38 retrospective video recordings of therapy. It used a checklist measure of criteria to which the delivery of the sessions should adhere, and against which the sessions were rated. Participants were the people with aphasia receiving therapy, the students and qualified speech and language therapists delivering therapy, and the independent raters assessing the sessions. A sample of sessions was randomly chosen, including sessions delivered by qualified therapists and by students, and sessions from different time points in the treatment process. The fidelity was rated by the first author, and the fidelity rating calculated as a percentage. Comparisons in fidelity scores for the different variables were drawn using Mann-Whitney tests. The reliability of the checklist was assessed through inter and intra-rater reliability testing, and the results were analysed using Kappa statistics.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

High fidelity was found across all therapy conditions with a mean score of 98.2%. Fidelity scores were not affected by the administrator of therapy; sessions delivered by qualified and student therapists were rated equally highly. There was a small but significant effect of time, with later treatment sessions scoring more highly than earlier sessions. However, scores across both periods > 90%. Inter-rater reliability found a high percentage agreement of 93.3% and a Poor Kappa agreement level. Intra-rater agreement found a high percentage agreement of 97.3% and a Fair Kappa agreement level.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

The CommuniCATE reading therapy was implemented as per the protocol across time points, and withstood delegation to students. The high fidelity and good reliability scores have positive implications for the study's validity and reliability, and for the study's replication.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject TF refers to the degree to which the delivery of core components of a treatment matches the implementation guidelines, that is, the adherence to protocol. Despite the acknowledged importance of TF reporting, this is often neglected in the literature. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This paper shows that the TF assessment of the CommuniCATE study (reading strand) found a 98.2% fidelity score, and that high fidelity was not compromised across treatment conditions. This paper outlines the principles of TF and highlights the need for measures to be in place to establish TF, for example, manuals, training and supervision; and to monitor TF, for example, via the use of checklists. This paper also underlines the scarcity of TF measures and checks in aphasia research. This paper therefore serves as a model of TF practice in aphasia therapy research. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This study contributes to the findings of the CommuniCATE project (reading strand), and the high fidelity findings enhance the validity of the project and indicate that the therapy manual and training enable accurate implementation of delivery. This paper also contributes to the literature on TF evaluation in aphasia studies, which is presently lacking, and highlights the need for increased focus on the optimum strategies of TF reporting.

Core Outcome Set Use in Poststroke Aphasia Treatment Research: Examining Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation Using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Purpose A core outcome set (COS; an agreed minimum set of outcomes) was developed to address the heterogeneous measurement of outcomes in poststroke aphasia treatment research. Successful implementation of a COS requires change in individual and collective research behavior. We used the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to understand the factors influencing researchers' use and nonuse of the Research Outcome Measurement in Aphasia (ROMA) COS. Method Aphasia trialists and highly published treatment researchers were identified from the Cochrane review of speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke and through database searches. Participants completed a theory-informed online survey that explored factors influencing COS use. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Results Sixty-four aphasia researchers from 13 countries participated. Most participants (81%) were aware of the ROMA COS, and participants identified more facilitators than barriers to its use. The TDF domain with the highest agreement (i.e., facilitator) was "knowledge" (84% agree/strongly agree). Participants had knowledge of the measures included in the ROMA COS, their associated benefits, and the existing recommendations. The TDF domains with the least agreement (i.e., barriers) were "reinforcement" (34% agree/strongly agree); "social influences" (41% agree/strongly agree); "memory, attention, and decision processes" (45% agree/strongly agree); and "behavioral regulation" (49% agree/strongly agree). Hence, participants identified a lack of external incentives, collegial encouragement, and monitoring systems as barriers to using the ROMA COS. The suitability and availability of individual measurement instruments, as well as burden associated with collecting the COS, were also identified as reasons for nonuse. Conclusions Overall, participants were aware of the benefits of using the ROMA COS and believed that its implementation would improve research quality; however, incentives for routine implementation were reported to be lacking. Findings will guide future revisions of the ROMA COS and the development of theoretically informed implementation strategies. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16528524.

Attitude theory and measurement in implementation science: a secondary review of empirical studies and opportunities for advancement

BACKGROUND

Implementation science studies often express interest in "attitudes," a term borrowed from psychology. In psychology, attitude research has an established methodological and theoretical base, which we briefly summarize here. We then review implementation studies designed to measure attitudes and compare their definitions and methods with those from psychology.

METHODS

A recent review identified 46 studies empirically examining factors associated with implementation. For each of these studies, we evaluated whether authors included attitudes as a construct of interest, and if so, whether and how the construct was defined, measured, and analyzed.

RESULTS

Most of the articles (29/46 [63%]) mention attitudes as an implementation factor. Six articles include a definition of the construct. Nineteen studies were designed to measure attitudes but lacked clarity in describing how attitudes were measured. Those that explained their measurement approach used methods that differed from one another and from validated methods in social psychology. Few articles described associated analyses or provided results specific to attitudes. Despite the lack of specificity regarding relevant measurement, analysis, and results, the articles often included causal conclusions about the role of attitudes.

CONCLUSIONS

Attitudes may be an important construct to implementation scientists, but studies to date are ambiguous in their definitions of attitudes and inconsistent in the methods used to measure and analyze attitudes. We discuss how implementation studies can apply psychology's standardized definitions, validated measurement approaches, and causal models that include attitudes. This application of attitude theory and methods could offer implementation research valuable scientific opportunities.

Delivering an iterative Communication Partner Training programme to multidisciplinary healthcare professionals: A pilot implementation study and process evaluation

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence that Communication Partner Training (CPT) can enable health professionals to communicate more effectively with people with aphasia (PWA), an evidence-practice gap exists. To address this, a tailored implementation intervention was developed and trialled to improve health professionals' implementation of communication strategies in a subacute setting.

AIMS

To explore the outcomes and perceived feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness of an iterative CPT implementation intervention on multidisciplinary healthcare professionals' communication with PWA.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

The CPT implementation intervention was delivered to two groups of healthcare professionals (n = 6 and 7) approximately 6 months apart. The intervention underwent two iterations targeting emerging barriers to implementation success, with Group 2 receiving a modified version of the Group 1 intervention. A concurrent qualitative process evaluation was conducted to understand key factors determining implementation outcomes. Quantitative outcomes were recorded at baseline and 3-month follow-up, including the Measure of Skill in Supported Communication (MSC), a customized behavioural determinants survey mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Organizational Readiness for Change survey. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews were conducted with health professional participants and the speech-language therapist trainer to explore perceptions of feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness. Content analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data, with categories and themes generated.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

The Group 2 implementation intervention was adapted based on feedback and reflections from Group 1 participants to incorporate more time for practice interactions and discussion during training, individual follow-up sessions and provision of accessible resources to aid communication attempts. There were greater improvements seen in the Group 2 outcomes on both the MSC and the TDF survey, suggesting that the iterative tailoring of the intervention was successful in addressing the barriers to change and led to improved implementation. The difference between the group's outcomes may also partly be explained by the impact of organizational readiness, which decreased during Group 1's implementation period. Despite similar themes emerging from the stakeholder perspectives in both groups (training factors, implementation facilitators, implementation barriers, and changes in knowledge and practice), these diverted in ways which served to explain the different implementation outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

An iteratively adapted CPT implementation intervention targeting healthcare professionals' use of supported communication strategies was feasible and acceptable for most participants. The implementation intervention was potentially effective in changing participants' communication with PWA, particularly for Group 2. Future CPT implementation efforts should continue to incorporate stakeholder input and tailor strategies to the organizational context, and measure whether outcomes are sustained in the long term. What this paper adds What is already known on the subject CPT is a complex intervention that can improve communication access and outcomes for PWA. However, there are barriers to both delivering CPT programmes to staff, and for staff in modifying their communication behaviours. Despite increasing efforts to improve CPT implementation, it remains largely unclear whether CPT implementation interventions are effective in improving interactions between staff and patients, and what elements of an implementation intervention result in changed behaviour. What this study adds to existing knowledge This study showed that adopting an iterative, barriers-focused approach to implementation facilitated practice change for one of the groups that participated in the programme. Incorporating stakeholder feedback in an ongoing way led to improvements in feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness, with several of the main barriers being effectively addressed by the intervention. Some key mechanisms of change were identified. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work It is necessary to develop active, targeted implementation strategies to support healthcare professionals to modify their communication, monitor implementation barriers as they arise and modify behaviour-change strategies accordingly. In a similar context, it is suggested that CPT implementation interventions should incorporate the use of audit feedback, physical resources and educational lectures paired with interactions with PWA in order to bring about change, with ongoing support and facilitation.

What influences allied health clinician participation in research in the public hospital setting: a qualitative theory-informed approach

OBJECTIVES

Using theoretical frameworks from implementation science, we aimed to systematically explore the barriers and enablers to research active allied health professionals (AHP) participating and leading research in the hospital setting.

DESIGN

A qualitative interview study informed by behaviour change theory.

SETTING

Single Australian tertiary hospital and health service.

PARTICIPANTS

We recruited a convenience sample of 21 AHPs working within a hospital who were seeking to actively participate in/or lead research within their workplace.

DATA COLLECTION

Semistructured interviews explored perceived barriers and enablers to research participation, informed by the 14 domains of the theoretical domains framework (TDF). Transcribed interviews were deductively coded and mapped to the TDF. A deeper level of inductive coding was used to identify emergent themes that influenced behaviour change, according to the three key constructs of: capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B).

RESULTS

Barriers and enablers to research participation were identified within nine predominant domains of the TDF. Most enablers to engaging in research related to the motivation or opportunity constructs of the COM-B. These enablers included positive beliefs about the consequences of research participation, enabling social influences, peer support and motivation for skill development and to inform practice. Predominant barriers related to environmental context and resources (eg, reduced funding or time), emotional responses of being overwhelmed and perceptions of reduced capability.

CONCLUSION

This study identified key barriers and enablers to behaviour change related to AHPs participating and/or leading research. Motivation and opportunities to participate in research may be enabled by maximising social influence opportunities, reiterating beliefs about positive consequences of research and considering AHP's emotional responses. Implementation science frameworks may provide a more systematic and holistic understanding of factors which influence research participation including enhancing knowledge, motivation and opportunity.

Participant reported outcomes of a community of practice about social participation for speech-language pathologists in aphasia rehabilitation

Purpose: Because of their communication difficulties, persons with aphasia are at risk of not fully participating in significant activities after rehabilitation. Speech-language pathologists can contribute to support optimal social participation in rehabilitation. A community of practice (CoP) was designed to provide motivated clinicians with opportunities to acquire knowledge and reflect on social participation within aphasia rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to describe the outcomes of this CoP according to the perspectives of speech-language pathologist participants.Methods: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted 4 to 10 weeks after the end of the CoP with 13 speech-language pathologist participants. Analyses were guided by grounded theory.Results: Participants perceived that the CoP experience contributed to a better alignment of their practice with the ideal end purpose of optimizing social participation. A sense of community emerged among CoP members, who collectively reflected on their practice. Participants stated feeling equipped to adopt new practices, adopting new practices for optimizing social participation, and/or advocating for better services for persons with aphasia. They felt increased confidence, motivation, well-being, and/or energy towards their practice.Conclusions: CoPs can help speech-language pathologists to more confidently practice with the goal of optimizing the social participation of persons with aphasia.Implications for rehabilitationSpeech-language pathologists in aphasia rehabilitation, as a result of being involved in a community of practice (CoP) about social participation, may offer more evidence-based services aiming at optimizing the social participation of persons with aphasia.Markers of a successful CoP may include participants' increased feelings of confidence, motivation, well-being, and/or energy towards their practice.CoPs can be used for continuing education purposes and support the development of clinical expertise among professionals, such as speech-language pathologists in aphasia rehabilitation.

A systematic review of empirical studies examining mechanisms of implementation in health

BACKGROUND

Understanding the mechanisms of implementation strategies (i.e., the processes by which strategies produce desired effects) is important for research to understand why a strategy did or did not achieve its intended effect, and it is important for practice to ensure strategies are designed and selected to directly target determinants or barriers. This study is a systematic review to characterize how mechanisms are conceptualized and measured, how they are studied and evaluated, and how much evidence exists for specific mechanisms.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed and CINAHL Plus for implementation studies published between January 1990 and August 2018 that included the terms "mechanism," "mediator," or "moderator." Two authors independently reviewed title and abstracts and then full texts for fit with our inclusion criteria of empirical studies of implementation in health care contexts. Authors extracted data regarding general study information, methods, results, and study design and mechanisms-specific information. Authors used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess study quality.

RESULTS

Search strategies produced 2277 articles, of which 183 were included for full text review. From these we included for data extraction 39 articles plus an additional seven articles were hand-entered from only other review of implementation mechanisms (total = 46 included articles). Most included studies employed quantitative methods (73.9%), while 10.9% were qualitative and 15.2% were mixed methods. Nine unique versions of models testing mechanisms emerged. Fifty-three percent of the studies met half or fewer of the quality indicators. The majority of studies (84.8%) only met three or fewer of the seven criteria stipulated for establishing mechanisms.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers have undertaken a multitude of approaches to pursue mechanistic implementation research, but our review revealed substantive conceptual, methodological, and measurement issues that must be addressed in order to advance this critical research agenda. To move the field forward, there is need for greater precision to achieve conceptual clarity, attempts to generate testable hypotheses about how and why variables are related, and use of concrete behavioral indicators of proximal outcomes in the case of quantitative research and more directed inquiry in the case of qualitative research.

A systematic review of empirical studies examining mechanisms of implementation in health

BACKGROUND

Understanding the mechanisms of implementation strategies (i.e., the processes by which strategies produce desired effects) is important for research to understand why a strategy did or did not achieve its intended effect, and it is important for practice to ensure strategies are designed and selected to directly target determinants or barriers. This study is a systematic review to characterize how mechanisms are conceptualized and measured, how they are studied and evaluated, and how much evidence exists for specific mechanisms.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed and CINAHL Plus for implementation studies published between January 1990 and August 2018 that included the terms "mechanism," "mediator," or "moderator." Two authors independently reviewed title and abstracts and then full texts for fit with our inclusion criteria of empirical studies of implementation in health care contexts. Authors extracted data regarding general study information, methods, results, and study design and mechanisms-specific information. Authors used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess study quality.

RESULTS

Search strategies produced 2277 articles, of which 183 were included for full text review. From these we included for data extraction 39 articles plus an additional seven articles were hand-entered from only other review of implementation mechanisms (total = 46 included articles). Most included studies employed quantitative methods (73.9%), while 10.9% were qualitative and 15.2% were mixed methods. Nine unique versions of models testing mechanisms emerged. Fifty-three percent of the studies met half or fewer of the quality indicators. The majority of studies (84.8%) only met three or fewer of the seven criteria stipulated for establishing mechanisms.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers have undertaken a multitude of approaches to pursue mechanistic implementation research, but our review revealed substantive conceptual, methodological, and measurement issues that must be addressed in order to advance this critical research agenda. To move the field forward, there is need for greater precision to achieve conceptual clarity, attempts to generate testable hypotheses about how and why variables are related, and use of concrete behavioral indicators of proximal outcomes in the case of quantitative research and more directed inquiry in the case of qualitative research.

A survey of speech-language pathology treatment for non-progressive dysarthria in Australia

Aim:

To identify management practices of Australian speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the treatment of non-progressive dysarthria using a subsystem approach, and to explore SLPs’ consideration and implementation of the theoretical underpinnings of non-progressive dysarthria management.

Method:

A 39-item online survey was distributed to Australian SLPs, with 80 responses suitable for data analysis.

Results:

Practices of SLPs were variable for the management of the speech subsystems. The Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT®) was the most commonly used manualised treatment program, and was employed by 63.77% of respondents. Almost all SLPs (>88%) provided strategies to improve functional communication. There was no clear preference for low tech alternative and augmentative communication (AAC) devices. Speech generating devices were the most commonly employed high tech device. Almost two-thirds of respondents used non-speech oral motor exercises (NSOMEs) in treatment. SLPs had varied frequencies and models of service delivery for intervention. SLPs valued interventions targeting the activity and participation domains of the ICF, however this was restricted by the treatment context and resources available. The majority of SLPs (92.06%) were aware of the principles of motor learning, however many were unsure regarding the specifics of implementation.

Conclusion:

There is a clear need for further research into the efficacy of treatment techniques to guide decision-making.

Implementation of an integrated multidisciplinary Movement Disorders Clinic: applying a knowledge translation framework to improve multidisciplinary care

PURPOSE

To evaluate the implementation of an integrated multidisciplinary Movement Disorder Clinic using a model of knowledge translation.

METHODS

A mixed methods design was used to evaluate implementation outcomes. After recognising poor referral rates to allied health, Movement Disorder Clinic team-members identified implementation barriers. Team- and process-level implementation strategies were designed and tailored to address these barriers. The primary outcome measure was the change in the proportion of patients referred to allied health, determined by comparing pre- and post-implementation documentation audits. Secondary outcome measures included clinician and consumer surveys to identify ongoing implementation barriers and stakeholder satisfaction.

RESULTS

Documentation from 90 medical records was included in the audits (post-intervention n = 45). There was a significant improvement in the referral rates to allied health from 53% to 84% (mean improvement 31%, p = 0.003, Fisher's exact test). However, documentation of disease education decreased by 38% (p = 0.000, Fisher's exact test). Movement Disorder Clinic team-members identified three main barriers to ongoing implementation: "memory and automaticity", "environmental context and resources" and "beliefs about capabilities". Thirty-seven consumer surveys were completed, showing high levels of satisfaction (86%) but ongoing educational needs (51%).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of an integrated multidisciplinary Movement Disorder Clinic was facilitated by a knowledge translation framework, leading to improved allied health referral rates and high levels of staff and consumer satisfaction, but unmet educational needs of consumers. Future research in the field of multidisciplinary healthcare for people with movement disorders is needed to determine the impact of these changes on patients' healthcare outcomes.Implications for rehabilitationMultidisciplinary integrated healthcare models may lead to better outcomes in progressive diseases such as Parkinson's disease, however, can be challenging to implement.A knowledge translation framework facilitated successful implementation of an integrated multidisciplinary Movement Disorders Clinic, leading to significantly improved rates of appropriate referrals to allied health, and staff and consumer satisfaction.Team-members identified three main barriers to ongoing implementation - "memory and automaticity", "environmental context and resources," and "beliefs about capabilities" - which may impact sustainability and should be considered in future implementation efforts.

Barriers to implementing evidence-based assessment procedures: Perspectives from the front lines in pediatric speech-language pathology

PURPOSE

This practice-based research study was a collaborative effort between researchers and speech-language pathologists (SLPs). The purpose of the study was to assess SLPs' perceptions of barriers for two new evidence-based assessment procedures to be implemented in practice. Procedures were for (1) program-level outcome monitoring and (2) individual vulnerability testing for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. These procedures were summarized for clinicians in an online learning module.

METHOD

After finishing the online learning module, SLPs completed electronic surveys to identify perceived barriers to implementation. Fifty-four SLPs completed an online survey specific to the program-level outcome monitoring procedures. Twenty-five also completed an online survey specific to individual vulnerability testing. Surveys were structured using the Ottawa Model of Research Use, which assesses barriers within three components: (1) the practice environment; (2) clinicians' knowledge, skills, and beliefs; and (3) the evidence-based innovation (development and content of the online learning module).

RESULTS

Most items specific to program-level outcome monitoring were rated positively. Some barriers were identified within the practice environment and evidence-based innovation, but clinicians' skills, knowledge, and beliefs were not barriers to implementation. For individual vulnerability testing, barriers were noted across all components of the Ottawa Model of Research Use.

CONCLUSIONS

This work demonstrates the value of including front-line clinicians in the development of evidence-based assessment procedures. Through practice-based research, we identified SLPs' perceived barriers to implementation, allowing for modifications to be made to the online learning module prior to wider-scale implementation. The barriers identified and methods used in our work may be useful to other researchers and programs involved in developing materials and methods for the implementation of evidence-based assessment procedures.

Implementation Science: Tackling the Research to Practice Gap in Communication Sciences and Disorders

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to outline how implementation science can contribute to the advancement of communication sciences and disorders through its impact on both clinical research and clinical practice. Implementation science's pertinent definitions and history are discussed. Then, information is highlighted pertaining to the position of implementation science within the larger realm of clinical practice research. An exemplar study is reviewed to inform clinical researchers in communication sciences and disorders.

Conclusion

The importance of implementation science is emphasized by outlining ways that speech-language pathologists and audiologists can use implementation science to both inform their clinical practice and contribute to the evidence base of the disciplines.