Co-designing implementation strategies for the WALK-Cph intervention in Denmark aimed at increasing mobility in acutely hospitalized older patients: a qualitative analysis of selected strategies and their justifications

Hospital-induced immobility - a backstage story of lack of chairs, time, and assistance

BACKGROUND

Inactivity and bedrest during hospitalisation have numerous adverse consequences, and it is especially important that older patients are mobile during hospitalisation. This study aimed to identify whether the introduction of formal education of clinical staff and a Mobilisation Initiative (MI) could increase mobilisation of patients in a geriatric and a medical ward. Furthermore, to explore patients' and health care staffs' view on facilitators and barriers for mobilisation during hospitalisation.

METHODS

The study was a pragmatic clinical study. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used. The patients' level of mobilisation was obtained through short interview-based surveys and observations. Focus group interviews and formal education of clinical staff was initiated to increase awareness of mobilisation along with the implementation of a MI.

RESULTS

596 patient surveys were included. Of all patients, 50% in the geriatric ward and 70% in the medical ward were able to independently mobilise. The highest percentage of patients sitting in a chair for breakfast and lunch in the geriatric ward was 57% and 65%, and in the medical ward 23% and 26%, respectively. A facilitator for mobilisation was interdisciplinary collaboration, and barriers were lack of chairs and time, and the patients' lack of help transferring.

CONCLUSIONS

This study adds new knowledge regarding the lack of in-hospital mobilisation in geriatric and medical departments. Mealtimes are obvious mobilisation opportunities, but most patients consume their meals in bed. A potential for a MI is present, however, it must be interdisciplinarily and organisationally anchored for further investigation of effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the trial number NCT05926908.

Optimizing implementation: elucidating the role of behavior change techniques and corresponding strategies on determinants and implementation performance: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Behavior change techniques (BCTs) are considered as active components of implementation strategies, influencing determinants and, ultimately, implementation performance. In our previous Delphi study, experts formulated 'implementation hypotheses', detailing how specific combinations of BCTs and strategies (referred to as BCT-strategy combinations) might influence determinants and guideline implementation within youth care. For example, educational meetings providing instructions on guideline use were hypothesized to enhance practitioners' knowledge and, consequently, guideline implementation. However, these hypotheses have not been verified in practice yet.

METHOD

We conducted a cross-sectional study involving practitioners and management professionals from youth (health)care organizations. Using questionnaires, we obtained data on the presence of BCT-strategy combinations and their perceived influence on determinants and implementation performance. Chi-squared tests and regression analyses were employed to determine the influence of specific BCT-strategy combinations on determinants and implementation performance.

RESULTS

Our analyses included data from 104 practitioners and 34 management professionals. Most of the management professionals indicated that the BCT-strategy combinations positively influenced or had the potential to influence their implementation performance. At the practitioner level, half of the combinations were perceived to have a positive influence on determinants and implementation performance. Furthermore, practitioners who reported the absence of BCT-strategy combinations were more skeptical about their potential influence on determinants and implementation performance.

CONCLUSION

Several BCT-strategy combinations were perceived to improve or potentially improve implementation performance of both practitioners and management professionals. In the development and evaluation of implementation efforts, we advocate for clearly describing the implementation effort's objective and using frameworks that detail the BCTs inducing behavior change, the strategy employed, and the processes driving the observed changes. Understanding these interconnected processes is important in designing targeted, evidence-based behavior change interventions. This understanding optimizes resource allocation and contributes to the overall success of implementation efforts in youth care.

Identification and development of implementation strategies: the important role of codesign

Background

To date, implementation strategies reported in the literature are commonly poorly described and take the implementation context insufficiently into account. To unravel the black box of implementation strategy development, insight is needed into effective theory-based and practical-informed strategies. The current study aims to describe the stepwise development of a practical-informed and theory-based implementation strategy bundle to implement ProMuscle, a nutrition and exercise intervention for community-dwelling older adults, in multiple settings in primary care.

Methods

The first four steps of Implementation Mapping were adopted to develop appropriate implementation strategies. First, previously identified barriers to implementation were categorized into the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Second, the CFIR-ERIC matching tool linked barriers to existing implementation strategies. Behavioral change strategies were added from the literature where necessary. Third, evidence for implementation strategies was sought. Fourth, in codesign with involved healthcare professionals and implementation experts, implementation strategies were operationalized to practical implementation activities following the guidance provided by Proctor et al. These practical implementation activities were processed into an implementation toolbox, which can be tailored to a specific context and presents prioritized implementation activities in a chronological order.

Results

A previous study identified and categorized a total of 654 barriers for the implementation of a combined lifestyle intervention within the CFIR framework. Subsequently, the barriers were linked to 40 strategies. Due to the fact that many strategies impacted multiple barriers, seven overarching themes emerged based on the strategies: assessing the context, network internally, network externally, costs, knowledge, champions, and patient needs and resources. Codesign sessions with professionals and implementation experts resulted in the development of supported and tangible implementation activities for the final 20 strategies. The implementation activities were processed into a web-based implementation toolbox, which allows healthcare professionals to tailor the implementation activities to their specific context and guides healthcare professionals to prioritize implementation activities chronologically during their implementation.

Conclusion

A theory-based approach in combination with codesign sessions with stakeholders is a usable Implementation Strategy Mapping Method for developing a practical implementation strategy bundle to implement ProMuscle across multiple settings in primary care. The next step involves evaluating the developed implementation strategies, including the implementation toolbox, to assess their impact on the implementation and adoption of ProMuscle.

Are codesigned programmes more difficult to implement? A qualitative study of staff perceptions on the implementation of a new youth mental health programme

BACKGROUND

Codesigned interventions are becoming more common in health services and, in particular, in the design and development of mental health programmes and interventions. However, previous research has established that the transition from codesign to implementation can experience several challenges and that this transition process has received little research attention.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore the experience of staff members charged with the implementation of a codesigned intervention for young people and adolescents at risk of suicide.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Five staff members involved in the implementation of the new codesigned programme took part in semi-structured interviews.

METHOD

The study involved qualitative evaluation of staff experiences during the implementation of a new child and youth suicide intervention. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis identified four themes of 'disconnect', 'operational challenges, 'service user' and 'being authentic'. 'Disconnect' captures the difficulties of implementing a codesigned programme which leads to 'operational challenges' in meeting broader expectations while ensuring the feasibility of the programme. The third theme, 'service user', captures the realisation that the young people accessing the new service were different to those involved in the codesign process. The final theme, 'being authentic', highlights how staff needed to be responsive and flexible while remaining true to the principles proposed in the codesign.

DISCUSSION

This study yielded some valuable insights into the challenges around the implementation of a codesigned intervention, an under-researched area. The findings suggest that adaption of the design may be necessary, if it is not informed by implementation constraints, making it necessary for the implementation team to be well-briefed on the initial design and given plenty of time to make the necessary adjustments in a coproduction process. Limitations for the generalisation of the results include a small sample of staff and particular challenges that may be unique to this study.

CONCLUSION

The present study highlights that for health services undertaking codesign approaches, appropriate time and resources need to be considered for the implementation phase of an initiative, to ensure that there is effective translation from design to implementation and that new codesigned services can be effective within operational constraints.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the young people with a lived-experience and their carers who participated in the codesign process and research evaluation component of this study. We also wish to thank the clinical staff, peer workers and family peer workers who participated in the evaluation.

Contextualizing the results of an integrative review on the characteristics of dementia-friendly hospitals: a workshop with professional dementia experts

BACKGROUND

To become a dementia-friendly hospital (DFH) is increasingly being discussed in health care practice, research, politics and society. In our previous integrative review, we identified six characteristics of DFHs. To thoroughly discuss and contextualize these characteristics in relation to hospitals in Germany, we involved professional dementia experts in our review process.

METHODS

At the end of our review process, we involved professional dementia experts at the 'contributing' level of the ACTIVE framework to discuss and reflect on the six DFH characteristics we identified. We conducted a group process in the form of a one-day workshop. The workshop consisted of four steps: 1. presentation of review results (input), 2. modification of DFH characteristics and rating of their relevance in smaller working groups, 3. discussion of group results in plenary and 4. questionnaire for prioritization and rating of feasibility. The data were analyzed in MAXQDA using content analysis and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 16 professional dementia experts working in hospitals participated in the workshop. All the previously identified characteristics of a DFH were rated as relevant or very relevant for patients with dementia, their relatives and health care professionals from the professional dementia experts' perspective. They made a few modifications of the six characteristics at the level of subcategories, aspects, and descriptions. The feasibility of the characteristics in hospitals was critically discussed regarding resources, hospital structures and processes, the role of nurses, and the current care situation of people with dementia in hospitals. More than half of the subcategories of the characteristics were considered very difficult or difficult to implement by most professional dementia experts.

CONCLUSION

The involvement of professional dementia experts helped us contextualize our review findings within the German hospital setting. These results highlight the need to consider resources, funding options, influencing factors, and the current situation and culture of care provided by hospitals before implementing DFH characteristics. Beside the involvement of professional dementia experts and various health care professionals, the involvement of other stakeholders, such as people with dementia and their relatives, is necessary in future research for the development of a DFH.