Factors affecting the delivery of complex rehabilitation interventions in research with neurologically impaired adults: a systematic review

Co-design for stroke intervention development: Results of a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Co-design methodology seeks to actively engage end-users in developing interventions. It is increasingly used to design stroke interventions; however, limited guidance exists, particularly with/for individuals with stroke who have diverse cognitive, physical and functional abilities. Thus, we describe 1) the extent of existing research that has used co-design for stroke intervention development and 2) how co-design has been used to develop stroke interventions among studies that explicitly used co-design, including the rationale, types of co-designed stroke interventions, participants involved, research methodologies/approaches, methods of incorporating end-users in the research, co-design limitations, challenges and potential strategies reported by researchers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scoping review informed by Joanna Briggs Institute and Arksey & O'Malley methodology was conducted by searching nine databases on December 21, 2022, to locate English-language literature that used co-design to develop a stroke intervention. Additional data sources were identified through a hand search. Data sources were de-duplicated, and two research team members reviewed their titles, abstracts and full text to ensure they met the inclusion criteria. Data relating to the research objectives were extracted, analyzed, and reported numerically and descriptively.

RESULTS

Data sources used co-design for stroke intervention development with (n = 89) and without (n = 139) explicitly using the term 'co-design.' Among studies explicitly using co-design, it was commonly used to understand end-user needs and generate new ideas. Many co-designed interventions were technology-based (65%), and 48% were for physical rehabilitation or activity-based. Co-design was commonly conducted with multiple participants (82%; e.g., individuals with stroke, family members/caregivers and clinicians) and used various methods to engage end-users, including focus groups and workshops. Limitations, challenges and potential strategies for recruitment, participant-engagement, contextual and logistical and ethics of co-designed interventions were described.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the increasing popularity of co-design as a methodology for developing stroke interventions internationally, these findings can inform future co-designed studies.

Diabetes Specialists Value Continuous Glucose Monitoring Despite Challenges in Prescribing and Data Review Process

BACKGROUND

Diabetes clinicians are key facilitators of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provision, but data on provider behavior related to CGM use and CGM generated data are limited.

METHODS

We conducted a national survey of providers caring for people with diabetes on CGM-related opinions, facilitators and barriers to prescription, and data review practices.

RESULTS

Of 182 survey respondents, 73.2% worked at academic centers, 70.6% were endocrinologists, and 70.7% practiced in urban settings. Nearly 70% of providers reported CGM use in the majority of their patients with type 1 diabetes. Half of the providers reported CGM use in 10% to 50% of their patients with type 2 diabetes. All respondents believed CGM improved quality of life and could optimize diabetes control. We found no differences in reported rates of CGM use based on providers' years of experience, patient volume, practice setting, or clinic type. Most providers reviewed CGM data each visit (97.7%) and actively involved patients in the data interpretation (98.8%). Only 14.1% of clinicians reported reviewing CGM data without any prompting from patients or their family members outside of visits. Most providers (80.7%) reported their CGM data review was valued by patients although only half reported having adequate time (45.1%) or an efficient process (56.1%) to do so.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite uniform support for CGM by providers, ongoing challenges related to cost, insurance coverage, and difficulties with prescription were major barriers to CGM use. Increased use of CGM in appropriate populations will necessitate improvements in data access and integration, clearly defined workflows, and decreased administrative burden to obtain CGM.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: A systematic review

Health care budgets in high-income countries are having issues coping with unsustainable growth in demand, particularly in the hospital setting. Despite this, implementing tools systematising priority setting and resource allocation decisions has been challenging. This study answers two questions: (1) what are the barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting tools in the hospital setting of high-income countries? and (2) what is their fidelity? A systematic review using the Cochrane methods was conducted including studies of hospital-related priority setting tools reporting barriers or facilitators for implementation, published after the year 2000. Barriers and facilitators were classified using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Fidelity was assessed using priority setting tool's standards. Out of thirty studies, ten reported program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA), twelve multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), six health technology assessment (HTA) related frameworks, and two, an ad hoc tool. Barriers and facilitators were outlined across all CFIR domains. Implementation factors not frequently observed, such as 'evidence of previous successful tool application', 'knowledge and beliefs about the intervention' or 'external policy and incentives' were reported. Conversely, some constructs did not yield any barrier or facilitator including 'intervention source' or 'peer pressure'. PBMA studies satisfied the fidelity criteria between 86% and 100%, for MCDA it varied between 36% and 100%, and for HTA it was between 27% and 80%. However, fidelity was not related to implementation. This study is the first to use an implementation science approach. Results represent the starting point for organisations wishing to use priority setting tools in the hospital setting by providing an overview of barriers and facilitators. These factors can be used to assess readiness for implementation or to serve as the foundation for process evaluations. Through our findings, we aim to improve the uptake of priority setting tools and support their sustainable use.

Trauma- and Violence-Informed Care: Orienting Intimate Partner Violence Interventions to Equity

Purposeof Review

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a complex traumatic experience that often co-occurs, or is causally linked, with other forms of structural violence and oppression. However, few IPV interventions integrate this social-ecological perspective. We examine trauma- and violence-informed care (TVIC) in the context of existing IPV interventions as an explicitly equity-oriented approach to IPV prevention and response.

Recent Findings

Systematic reviews of IPV interventions along the public health prevention spectrum show mixed findings, with those with a theoretically grounded, structural approach that integrates a trauma lens more likely to show benefit.

Summary

TVIC, embedded in survivor-centered protocols with an explicit theory of change, is emerging as an equity-promoting approach underpinning IPV intervention. Explicit attention to structural violence and the complexity of IPV, systems and sites of intervention, and survivors’ diverse and intersectional lived experiences has significant potential to transform policy and practice.

Developing a method to assess fidelity to a complex vocational rehabilitation intervention in the FRESH trial: a feasibility study

Background

Determining whether complex rehabilitation interventions are delivered with fidelity is important. Implementation fidelity can differ between sites, therapists delivering interventions and, over time, threatening trial outcomes and increasing the risk of type II and III errors. This study aimed to develop a method of assessing occupational therapists’ fidelity to deliver a complex, individually tailored vocational rehabilitation (VR) intervention to people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and assess the feasibility of its use in a randomised controlled trial.

Methods

Using mixed methods and drawing on the intervention logic model, we developed data collection tools to measure fidelity to early specialist TBI VR (ESTVR). Fidelity was measured quantitatively using intervention case report forms (CRF), fidelity checklists and clinical records. Qualitative data from mentoring records, interviews with intervention therapists, participants with TBI, employers and NHS staff at trial sites explored moderators of implementation fidelity. The conceptual framework of implementation fidelity (CFIF) guided measurement and analysis of and factors affecting fidelity. Data were triangulated and benchmarked against an earlier cohort study.

Results

Fidelity to a complex individually tailored VR intervention could be measured. Overall, OTs delivered ESTVR with fidelity. Different fidelity measures answered different questions, offering unique insights into fidelity. Fidelity was best assessed using a fidelity checklist, intervention CRFs and clinical notes. The OT clinical notes and mentoring records were best at identifying fidelity moderating factors. Interviews added little insight into fidelity moderating factors over and above mentoring or clinical records. Data triangulation offered a comprehensive assessment of fidelity, highlighting limitations of measurement methods and learning for future trials but was resource intensive. Interviews, fidelity visits and analysing clinical notes were also resource intense. Comparing fidelity data to a benchmark and using CFIF as a framework for organising the fidelity assessment helped.

Conclusions

OTs delivered the VR intervention with fidelity. A fidelity checklist and benchmark plus mentoring may offer a practical and effective way of measuring fidelity and identifying fidelity moderating factors in trials of complex individually-tailored rehabilitation interventions. Mentoring provided real-time indicators of and reasons for fidelity deviations. These methods require further evaluation.

Trial registration

ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN38581822 (Registered: 02/01/2014).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-022-01111-2.

Embedding mentoring to support trial processes and implementation fidelity in a randomised controlled trial of vocational rehabilitation for stroke survivors

BACKGROUND

Little guidance exists regarding how best to upskill and support those delivering complex healthcare interventions to ensure robust trial outcomes and implementation fidelity. Mentoring was provided to occupational therapists (OTs) delivering a complex vocational rehabilitation (VR) intervention to stroke survivors. This study aimed to explore mentors' roles in supporting OTs with intervention delivery and fidelity, and to describe factors affecting the mentoring process and intervention delivery.

METHODS

Quantitative data (duration, mode and total time of mentoring support) was extracted from mentoring records and emails between mentors and OTs, alongside qualitative data on barriers and facilitators to intervention delivery. Semi-structured interviews with mentors (n = 6) and OTs (n = 19) explored experiences and perceptions of intervention training, delivery and the mentoring process. Mean total and monthly time spent mentoring were calculated per trial site. Qualitative data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Forty-one OTs across 16 sites were mentored between March 2018 and April 2020. Most mentoring was provided by phone or Microsoft Teams (range: 88.6-100%), with the remainder via email and SMS (Short Message Service) text messages. Mentors suggested strategies to enhance trial recruitment, improved OTs' understanding of- and adherence to trial processes, intervention delivery and fidelity, and facilitated independent problem-solving. Barriers to mentoring included OT non-attendance at mentoring sessions and mentors struggling to balance mentoring with clinical roles. Facilitators included support from the trial team and mentors having protected time for mentoring.

CONCLUSIONS

Mentoring supported mentee OTs in various ways, but it remains unclear to what extent the OTS would have been able to deliver the intervention without mentoring support, or how this might have impacted fidelity. Successful implementation of mentoring alongside new complex interventions may increase the likelihood of intervention effectiveness being observed and sustained in real-life contexts. Further research is needed to investigate how mentors could be selected, upskilled, funded and mentoring provided to maximise impact. The clinical- and cost-effectiveness of mentoring as an implementation strategy and its impact on fidelity also requires testing in a future trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, ISRCTN12464275 . Registered on 13th March 2018.