Examining the effect of the individual characteristics of implementers and the interaction of multiple relationships on the structure of psychosocial intervention teams

Structural Cohesion, Role Equivalence, or Homophily: Which Process Best Explains Social Homogeneity?

Social homogeneity, understood as the similarity of perceptions and attitudes that individuals display toward the environment around them, is explained by the relational context in which they are immersed. However, there is no consensus about which relational mechanism best explains social homogeneity. The purpose of this research is to find out which of the three classical relational processes most studied in network analysis (structural cohesion, role equivalence, or homophily) is more determinant in explaining social homogeneity. To achieve the research objective, 110 professionals (psychologists, social workers, and community facilitators) implementing a psychosocial care program in three regions of Northwest Colombia were interviewed. Different types of relationships among professionals were analyzed using network analysis techniques. To examine the structural cohesion hypothesis, interveners were categorized according to the level of structural cohesion by performing core-periphery analysis in the networks evaluated; to test the role equivalence hypothesis, participants were categorized according to their level of degree centrality in the networks examined; to test the homophily hypothesis, participants were grouped according to the level of homophily in terms of professional profile. The non-parametric tests showed that role equivalence was the most powerful mechanism for explaining social homogeneity in the sample of psychosocial interveners evaluated.

Facilitators and barriers of infectious diseases surveillance activities: lessons from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative - a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

To document lessons from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) by determining factors associated with successful surveillance programme globally as well as at national and subnational levels. The process of conducting surveillance has been previously recognised in the literature as important for the success of polio surveillance activities.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey with closed and open-ended questions.

SETTINGS

Survey of persons involved in the implementation of surveillance activities under the GPEI at the global level and in seven low-income and middle-income countries.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals (n=802) with ≥12 months of experience implementing surveillance objective of the GPEI between 1988 and 2019.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND METHODS

Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted. Logistic regression analyses were used to assess factors associated with implementation process as a factor for successful surveillance programme. Horizontal analysis was used to analyse qualitative free-text responses on facilitators and barriers identified for conducting surveillance activities successfully.

RESULTS

Overall, participants who reported challenges relating to GPEI programme characteristics had 50% lower odds of reporting implementation process as a factor for successful surveillance (adjusted OR (AOR): 0.50, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.85). Challenges were mainly perceptions of external intervention source (ie, surveillance perceived as 'foreign' to local communities) and the complexity of surveillance processes (ie, surveillance required several intricate steps). Those who reported organisational challenges were almost two times more likely to report implementation process as a factor for successful surveillance (AOR: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.07 to 3.31) overall, and over threefolds (AOR: 3.32, 95% CI: 1.14 to 9.66) at the national level.

CONCLUSIONS

Programme characteristics may have impeded the process of conducting surveillance under the GPEI, while organisational characteristics may have facilitated the process. Future surveillance programmes should be designed with inputs from local communities and frontline implementers.

Investigating strategies to increase general education teachers' adherence to evidence-based social-emotional behavior practices: A meta-analysis of the single-case literature

Educational researchers have produced a variety of evidence-based practices (EBP) to address social, emotional, and behavioral (SEB) needs among students. Yet, these practices are often insufficiently adopted and implemented with fidelity by teachers to produce the beneficial outcomes associated with the EBP, leaving students at risk for developing SEB problems. If ignored, SEB problems can lead to other negative outcomes, such as academic failure. Therefore, implementation strategies (i.e., methods and procedures designed to promote implementation outcomes) are needed to improve teachers' uptake and delivery of EBPs with fidelity. This meta-analysis sought to examine the types and magnitude of effect of implementation strategies that have been designed and tested to improve teacher adherence to SEB EBPs. Included studies (a) used single case experimental designs, (b) employed at least one implementation strategy, (c) targeted general education teachers, and (d) evaluated adherence as a core dimension of fidelity related to the delivery of EBPs. In total, this study included 28 articles and evaluated 122 effect sizes. A total of 15 unique implementation strategies were categorized. Results indicated that, on average, implementation strategies were associated with increases in teacher adherence to EBPs above baseline and group-based pre-implementation trainings alone (g = 2.32, tau = 0.77). Moderator analysis also indicated that larger effects were associated with implementation strategies that used a greater number of unique behavior change techniques (p < .001). Implications and future directions for research and practice regarding use of implementation strategies for general education teachers are discussed.

An Implementation Process Evaluation Based on an Integrated Psychosocial Support Program of Colorectal Cancer Couples in China: A Pilot Study

Studies have shown that the qualitative process assessment of cancer couple-based psychosocial interventions is often ignored. This article aims to evaluate the implementation process of an integrated psychosocial program developed for colorectal cancer couples. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with eight colorectal cancer couple participants and two intervention facilitators. Normalization Process Theory was used to guide the data collection and analysis. Data analysis was conducted using a directed content analysis approach within a framework approach. Participants had a good understanding of the program significance. For most participants, the intervention duration was appropriate, and was well integrated into daily life. A lack of understanding of psychological nursing, and a lack of confidence in the use of online platforms and other personal factors, inhibited participants' experience of participating in the intervention. The facilitator's challenge in the implementation process was being flexible in dealing with situations occurring outside of the framework plan. Face-to-face and online psychological interventions require more flexibility, and participant cognition of psychosocial care was the key to the successful implementation of the intervention. Future research should consider raising participants' awareness of psychological care to better integrate this type of intervention into participants' daily lives and routine care.

Lessons learned about the effective operationalization of champions as an implementation strategy: results from a qualitative process evaluation of a pragmatic trial

BACKGROUND

Though the knowledge base on implementation strategies is growing, much remains unknown about how to most effectively operationalize these strategies in diverse contexts. For example, while evidence shows that champions can effectively support implementation efforts in some circumstances, little has been reported on how to operationalize this role optimally in different settings, or on the specific pathways through which champions enact change.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of data from a pragmatic trial comparing implementation strategies supporting the adoption of guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing in community health centers in the USA. Quantitative data came from the community health centers' shared electronic health record; qualitative data sources included community health center staff interviews over 3 years. Using a convergent mixed-methods design, data were collected concurrently and merged for interpretation to identify factors associated with improved outcomes. Qualitative analysis was guided by the constant comparative method. As results from the quantitative and initial qualitative analyses indicated the essential role that champions played in promoting guideline-concordant prescribing, we conducted multiple immersion-crystallization cycles to better understand this finding.

RESULTS

Five community health centers demonstrated statistically significant increases in guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing. A combination of factors appeared key to their successful practice change: (1) A clinician champion who demonstrated a sustained commitment to implementation activities and exhibited engagement, influence, credibility, and capacity; and (2) organizational support for the intervention. In contrast, the seven community health centers that did not show improved outcomes lacked a champion with the necessary characteristics, and/or organizational support. Case studies illustrate the diverse, context-specific pathways that enabled or prevented study implementers from advancing practice change.

CONCLUSION

This analysis confirms the important role of champions in implementation efforts and offers insight into the context-specific mechanisms through which champions enact practice change. The results also highlight the potential impact of misaligned implementation support and key modifiable barriers and facilitators on implementation outcomes. Here, unexamined assumptions and a lack of evidence-based guidance on how best to identify and prepare effective champions led to implementation support that failed to address important barriers to intervention success.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02325531 . Registered 15 December 2014.