Implementing a complex psychosocial intervention for unstably housed Veterans: A realist-informed evaluation case study

Development and implementation of Australian State, territory, and national policy on the health and wellbeing of adolescents and young adults: An exploration of policy actor perspectives using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

OBJECTIVES

Government policies that support the health and wellbeing of young people (aged 10 to 25) can have important individual and societal impacts. The aim of this study was to explore policy actor perspectives on the development and implementation of Australian government policies focussed on the health and wellbeing of young people.

METHODS

We utilised a qualitative research design consisting of semi-structured interviews with policy actors with experience working with Australian youth health policies. Our interview guide and analyses were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We interviewed 19 participants from various national, state, and territory bodies.

RESULTS

Several specific barriers and facilitators to policy development and implementation were identified using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Key policy development barriers were limited available resources (e.g. staffing and funding) and low relative priority within health and political systems. Key policy implementation barriers were limited available resources, limited policy compatibility with health services, cosmopolitanism issues related to interagency collaboration, and a lack of policy evaluation. Meaningful engagement of young people could also be improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Although Australian youth health policies are perceived as evidence-based and comprehensively developed, the ability to promote implementation remains stalled.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH

The development of policy implementation plans, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, funding and resources, and a strong commitment to removing barriers to working across multiple departments and systems is required to improve outcomes for young people.

Implementation of a frailty intervention in the transition from hospital to home: a realist process evaluation protocol for the FORTRESS trial

INTRODUCTION

Frailty in Older people: Rehabilitation, Treatment, Research Examining Separate Settings (the FORTRESS study) is a multisite, hybrid type II, stepped wedge, cluster, randomised trial examining the uptake and outcomes of a frailty intervention. The intervention is based on the 2017 Asia Pacific Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Frailty and begins in the acute hospital setting and transitions to the community. The success of the intervention will require individual and organisational behaviour change within a dynamic health system. This process evaluation will examine the multiple variables at play in the context and mechanism of the frailty intervention to enhance understanding of the outcomes of the FORTRESS study and how the outcomes can be translated from the trial into broader practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The FORTRESS intervention will recruit participants from six wards in New South Wales and South Australia, Australia. Participants of the process evaluation will include trial investigators, ward-based clinicians, FORTRESS implementation clinicians, general practitioners and FORTRESS participants. The process evaluation has been designed using realist methodology and will occur in parallel to the FORTRESS trial. A mixed-method approach will be used with qualitative and quantitative data collected from interviews, questionnaires, checklists and outcome assessments. Qualitative and quantitative data will be examined for CMOCs (Context, Mechanism, Outcome Configurations) and programme theories will be developed, tested and refined. This will facilitate development of more generalisable theories to inform translation of frailty intervention within complex healthcare systems.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for the FORTRESS trial, inclusive of the process evaluation, has been obtained from the Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committees reference number 2020/ETH01057. Recruitment for the FORTRESS trial uses opt-out consent. Dissemination will be via publications, conferences and social media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12620000760976p (FORTRESS trial).

How can climate change and its interaction with other compounding risks be considered in evaluation? Experiences from Vietnam

While evaluations play a critical role in accounting for and learning from context, it is unclear how evaluations can take account of climate change. Our objective was to explore how climate change and its interaction with other contextual factors influenced One Health food safety programs. To do so, we integrated questions about climate change into a qualitative evaluation study of an ongoing, multi-sectoral program aiming to improve pork safety in Vietnam called SafePORK. We conducted remote interviews with program researchers (n = 7) and program participants (n = 23). Based on our analysis, researchers believed climate change had potential impacts on the program but noted evidence was lacking, while program participants (slaughterhouse workers and retailers) shared how they were experiencing and adapting to the impacts of climate change. Climate change also interacted with other contextual factors to introduce additional complexities. Our study underscored the importance of assessing climate factors in evaluation and building adaptive capacity in programming.

Lessons learnt from the implementation of new models of care delivery through alliance governance in the Southern health region of New Zealand: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To explore the process of implementation of the primary and community care strategy (new models of care delivery) through alliance governance in the Southern health region of New Zealand (NZ).

DESIGN

Qualitative semistructured interviews were undertaken. A framework-guided rapid analysis was conducted, informed by implementation science theory-the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

SETTING

Southern health region of NZ (Otago and Southland).

PARTICIPANTS

Eleven key informants (Alliance Leadership Team members and senior health professionals) who were involved in the development and/or implementation of the strategy.

RESULTS

The large number of strategy action plans and interdependencies of activities made implementation of the strategy complex. In the inner setting, communication and relationships between individuals and organisations were identified as an important factor for joint and integrated working. Key elements of a positive implementation climate were not adequately addressed to better align the interests of health providers, and there were multiple competing priorities for the project leaders. A perceived low level of commitment from the leadership of both organisations to joint working and resourcing indicated poor organisational readiness. Gaps in the implementation process included no detailed implementation plan (reflected in poor execution), ambitious targets, the lack of a clear performance measurement framework and an inadequate feedback mechanism.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified factors for the successful implementation of the PCSS using an alliancing approach in Southern NZ. A key enabler is the presence of a stable and committed senior leadership team working through high trust relationships and open communication across all partner organisations. With alliances, partnerships and networks increasingly held up as models for integration, this evaluation identifies important lessons for policy makers, managers and services providers both in NZ and internationally.