1
|
Zhang Z, Lin KY. Applying implementation science to evaluate participatory ergonomics program for continuous improvement: A case study in the construction industry. APPLIED ERGONOMICS 2024; 115:104181. [PMID: 37988875 DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2023.104181] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2023] [Revised: 08/17/2023] [Accepted: 11/12/2023] [Indexed: 11/23/2023]
Abstract
While participatory ergonomics (PE) presents numerous benefits, its empirical effectiveness remains elusive due to the lack of transparency in implementation contexts and processes. This hinders our ability to discern the reasons behind a program's success or failure and to determine optimization and adaptation strategies. To unravel this "black box," we present a case study using implementation science to evaluate a PE program and illuminate the mechanisms linking process to outcome. The study examines a 4.5-year PE program at a construction company, targeting musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) from material-cart handling. Using the RE-AIM framework and Implementation Causal Pathway Model, we evaluated implementation process and catalogued contextual factors through worker surveys (n = 106), safety document review (27 training sessions and 7 construction projects), and key informant observations. We assessed the program's impact using a 42-worker survey and an analysis of 8-year injury data, and determined the return-on-investment (ROI) by monetizing the collected data. The program achieved significant impact: Workers' ergonomic knowledge improved from 73% in baseline to 86% in follow-up; 97% of workers reported at least one positive change in their crews; and no cart handling injuries occurred after the first program change, resulting in a ROI rate of 1.99. Implementation process evaluation revealed that seamless integration, tailored intervention, and ongoing adjustments contributed to the success. Five organizational factors necessary for the effective functioning of these three strategies were identified, along with three moderators that amplified their influence. Finally, this case study demonstrates that implementation science offers a coherent structure for evaluating PE programs, uncovering mechanisms of change, and informing future improvements and adaptations. Our research facilitates knowledge transfer from implementation science to ergonomics, eventually leading to more cost-effective PE programs that are faithfully implemented across various industrial settings to prevent MSDs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhenyu Zhang
- Department of Construction Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.
| | - Ken-Yu Lin
- Department of Construction Management, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Douglas S, Bovendeerd B, van Sonsbeek M, Manns M, Milling XP, Tyler K, Bala N, Satterthwaite T, Hovland RT, Amble I, Atzil-Slonim D, Barkham M, de Jong K, Kendrick T, Nordberg SS, Lutz W, Rubel JA, Skjulsvik T, Moltu C. A Clinical Leadership Lens on Implementing Progress Feedback in Three Countries: Development of a Multidimensional Qualitative Coding Scheme. ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY IN MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH 2023:10.1007/s10488-023-01314-6. [PMID: 37917313 DOI: 10.1007/s10488-023-01314-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/12/2023] [Indexed: 11/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Progress feedback, also known as measurement-based care (MBC), is the routine collection of patient-reported measures to monitor treatment progress and inform clinical decision-making. Although a key ingredient to improving mental health care, sustained use of progress feedback is poor. Integration into everyday workflow is challenging, impacted by a complex interrelated set of factors across patient, clinician, organizational, and health system levels. This study describes the development of a qualitative coding scheme for progress feedback implementation that accounts for the dynamic nature of barriers and facilitators across multiple levels of use in mental health settings. Such a coding scheme may help promote a common language for researchers and implementers to better identify barriers that need to be addressed, as well as facilitators that could be supported in different settings and contexts. METHODS Clinical staff, managers, and leaders from two Dutch, three Norwegian, and four mental health organizations in the USA participated in semi-structured interviews on how intra- and extra-organizational characteristics interact to influence the use of progress feedback in clinical practice, supervision, and program improvement. Interviews were conducted in the local language, then translated to English prior to qualitative coding. RESULTS A team-based consensus coding approach was used to refine an a priori expert-informed and literature-based qualitative scheme to incorporate new understandings and constructs as they emerged. First, this hermeneutic approach resulted in a multi-level coding scheme with nine superordinate categories and 30 subcategories. Second-order axial coding established contextually sensitive categories for barriers and facilitators. CONCLUSIONS The primary outcome is an empirically derived multi-level qualitative coding scheme that can be used in progress feedback implementation research and development. It can be applied across contexts and settings, with expectations for ongoing refinement. Suggestions for future research and application in practice settings are provided. Supplementary materials include the coding scheme and a detailed playbook.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susan Douglas
- Department of Leadership, Policy and Organizations, Vanderbilt University, Peabody College, 230 Appleton Place PMB #414, Nashville, TN, 37203-5721, USA.
| | - Bram Bovendeerd
- Department of Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
- Dimence, Center for Mental Health Care, Deventer, the Netherlands
| | | | - Mya Manns
- Department of Leadership, Policy and Organizations, Vanderbilt University, Peabody College, 230 Appleton Place PMB #414, Nashville, TN, 37203-5721, USA
| | - Xavier Patrick Milling
- Department of Leadership, Policy and Organizations, Vanderbilt University, Peabody College, 230 Appleton Place PMB #414, Nashville, TN, 37203-5721, USA
| | - Ke'Sean Tyler
- Department of Leadership, Policy and Organizations, Vanderbilt University, Peabody College, 230 Appleton Place PMB #414, Nashville, TN, 37203-5721, USA
| | | | - Tim Satterthwaite
- Department of Leadership, Policy and Organizations, Vanderbilt University, Peabody College, 230 Appleton Place PMB #414, Nashville, TN, 37203-5721, USA
| | - Runar Tengel Hovland
- Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Førde, Norway
- Department of Research and Innovation, Førde Hospital Trust, Førde, Norway
| | - Ingunn Amble
- Villa Sana - Centre for Work Health, Modum Bad, Norway
| | | | - Michael Barkham
- Clinical and Applied Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Kim de Jong
- Clinical Psychology Unit, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Tony Kendrick
- Primary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Samuel S Nordberg
- Department of Behavioral Health, Reliant Medical Group, Worcester, MA, USA
| | - Wolfgang Lutz
- Department of Psychology, University of Trier, Trier, Germany
| | - Julian A Rubel
- Department of Psychology, Psychotherapy Research Lab, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany
| | | | - Christian Moltu
- District General Hospital of Førde, Førde, Norway
- Department of Health and Caring Science, Western Norway University of Applied Science, Førde, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Heinrich CH, McHugh S, McCarthy S, Curran GM, Donovan MD. Multidisciplinary DEprescribing review for Frail oldER adults in long-term care (DEFERAL): Implementation strategy design using behaviour science tools and stakeholder engagement. Res Social Adm Pharm 2023:S1551-7411(23)00252-8. [PMID: 37230873 DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2023.05.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2023] [Revised: 05/08/2023] [Accepted: 05/08/2023] [Indexed: 05/27/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Deprescribing is a strategy for reducing the use of potentially inappropriate medications for older adults. Limited evidence exists on the development of strategies to support healthcare professionals (HCPs) deprescribing for frail older adults in long-term care (LTC). OBJECTIVE To design an implementation strategy, informed by theory, behavioural science and consensus from HCPs, which facilitates deprescribing in LTC. METHODS This study was consisted of 3 phases. First, factors influencing deprescribing in LTC were mapped to behaviour change techniques (BCTs) using the Behaviour Change Wheel and two published BCT taxonomies. Second, a Delphi survey of purposively sampled HCPs (general practitioners, pharmacists, nurses, geriatricians and psychiatrists) was conducted to select feasible BCTs to support deprescribing. The Delphi consisted of two rounds. Using Delphi results and literature on BCTs used in effective deprescribing interventions, BCTs which could form an implementation strategy were shortlisted by the research team based on acceptability, practicability and effectiveness. Finally, a roundtable discussion was held with a purposeful, convenience sample of LTC general practitioners, pharmacists and nurses to prioritise factors influencing deprescribing and tailor the proposed strategies for LTC. RESULTS Factors influencing deprescribing in LTC were mapped to 34 BCTs. The Delphi survey was completed by 16 participants. Participants reached consensus that 26 BCTs were feasible. Following the research team assessment, 21 BCTs were included in the roundtable. The roundtable discussion identified lack of resources as the primary barrier to address. The agreed implementation strategy incorporated 11 BCTs and consisted of an education-enhanced 3-monthly multidisciplinary team deprescribing review, led by a nurse, conducted at the LTC site. CONCLUSION The deprescribing strategy incorporates HCPs' experiential understanding of the nuances of LTC and thus addresses systemic barriers to deprescribing in this context. The strategy designed addresses five determinants of behaviour to best support HCPs engaging with deprescribing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sheena McHugh
- School of Public Health, University College Cork, Ireland.
| | | | - Geoffrey M Curran
- Departments of Pharmacy Practice and Psychiatry, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, United States; Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, United States.
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kruse GR, Hale E, Bekelman JE, DeVoe JE, Gold R, Hannon PA, Houston TK, James AS, Johnson A, Klesges LM, Nederveld AL. Creating research-ready partnerships: the initial development of seven implementation laboratories to advance cancer control. BMC Health Serv Res 2023; 23:174. [PMID: 36810066 PMCID: PMC9942028 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09128-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2022] [Accepted: 01/30/2023] [Indexed: 02/23/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In 2019-2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in 'real-world' settings working to implement evidence-based interventions were developed within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) consortium. This paper describes and compares approaches to the initial development of seven I-Labs in order to gain an understanding of the development of research partnerships representing various implementation science designs. METHODS In April-June 2021, members of the ISC3 Implementation Laboratories workgroup interviewed research teams involved in I-Lab development in each center. This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews and case-study-based methods to collect and analyze data about I-Lab designs and activities. Interview notes were analyzed to identify a set of comparable domains across sites. These domains served as the framework for seven case descriptions summarizing design decisions and partnership elements across sites. RESULTS Domains identified from interviews as comparable across sites included engagement of community and clinical I-Lab members in research activities, data sources, engagement methods, dissemination strategies, and health equity. The I-Labs use a variety of research partnership designs to support engagement including participatory research, community-engaged research, and learning health systems of embedded research. Regarding data, I-Labs in which members use common electronic health records (EHRs) leverage these both as a data source and a digital implementation strategy. I-Labs without a shared EHR among partners also leverage other sources for research or surveillance, most commonly qualitative data, surveys, and public health data systems. All seven I-Labs use advisory boards or partnership meetings to engage with members; six use stakeholder interviews and regular communications. Most (70%) tools or methods used to engage I-Lab members such as advisory groups, coalitions, or regular communications, were pre-existing. Think tanks, which two I-Labs developed, represented novel engagement approaches. To disseminate research results, all centers developed web-based products, and most (n = 6) use publications, learning collaboratives, and community forums. Important variations emerged in approaches to health equity, ranging from partnering with members serving historically marginalized populations to the development of novel methods. CONCLUSIONS The development of the ISC3 implementation laboratories, which represented a variety of research partnership designs, offers the opportunity to advance understanding of how researchers developed and built partnerships to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the cancer control research lifecycle. In future years, we will be able to share lessons learned for the development and sustainment of implementation laboratories.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gina R Kruse
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Erica Hale
- Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
- Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Winston Salem, NC, USA
| | - Justin E Bekelman
- Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation at the Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Jennifer E DeVoe
- Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Rachel Gold
- Kaiser Permanente NW Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA
- OCHIN, Inc., Portland, OR, USA
| | - Peggy A Hannon
- Department of Health Systems and Population Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Thomas K Houston
- Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
- Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Winston Salem, NC, USA
- Department of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| | - Aimee S James
- Washington University in St Louis, School of Medicine, Division of Public Health Sciences, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Ashley Johnson
- Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Lisa M Klesges
- Washington University in St Louis, School of Medicine, Division of Public Health Sciences, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Andrea L Nederveld
- Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Oh AY, Emmons KM, Brownson RC, Glasgow RE, Foley KL, Lewis CC, Schnoll R, Huguet N, Caplon A, Chambers DA. Speeding implementation in cancer: The National Cancer Institute's Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control. J Natl Cancer Inst 2023; 115:131-138. [PMID: 36315080 PMCID: PMC9905952 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djac198] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2022] [Revised: 09/29/2022] [Accepted: 10/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
The National Cancer Institute's Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) Network represents a large-scale initiative to create an infrastructure to support and enable the efficient, effective, and equitable translation of approaches and evidence-based treatments to reduce cancer risk and improve outcomes. This Cancer MoonshotSM-funded ISC3 Network consists of 7 P50 Centers that support and advance the rapid development, testing, and refinement of innovative approaches to implement a range of evidence-based cancer control interventions. The Centers were designed to have research-practice partnerships at their core and to create the opportunity for a series of pilot studies that could explore new and sometimes risky ideas and embed in their infrastructure a 2-way engagement and collaboration essential to stimulating lasting change. ISC3 also seeks to enhance capacity of researchers, practitioners, and communities to apply implementation science approaches, methods, and measures. The Organizing Framework that guides the work of ISC3 highlights a collective set of 3 core areas of collaboration within and among Centers, including to 1) assess and incorporate dynamic, multilevel context; 2) develop and conduct rapid and responsive pilot and methods studies; and 3) build capacity for knowledge development and exchange. Core operating principles that undergird the Framework include open collaboration, consideration of the dynamic context, and engagement of multiple implementation partners to advance pragmatic methods and health equity and facilitate leadership and capacity building across implementation science and cancer control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- April Y Oh
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
| | - Karen M Emmons
- Department of Social and Behavioral Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Ross C Brownson
- Prevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
- Department of Surgery (Division of Public Health Sciences) and Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Russell E Glasgow
- Dissemination and Implementation Science Program and Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Kristie L Foley
- Department of Implementation Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, USA
| | - Cara C Lewis
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Robert Schnoll
- Department of Psychiatry and Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Nathalie Huguet
- Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Amy Caplon
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
| | - David A Chambers
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
McHugh SM, Riordan F, Kerins C, Curran G, Lewis CC, Presseau J, Wolfenden L, Powell BJ. Understanding tailoring to support the implementation of evidence-based interventions in healthcare: The CUSTOMISE research programme protocol. HRB Open Res 2023; 6:7. [PMID: 37361339 PMCID: PMC10285335 DOI: 10.12688/hrbopenres.13675.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/03/2023] [Indexed: 09/22/2023] Open
Abstract
Although there are effective evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to prevent, treat and coordinate care for chronic conditions they may not be adopted widely and when adopted, implementation challenges can limit their impact. Implementation strategies are "methods or techniques used to enhance the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of a clinical program or practice". There is some evidence to suggest that to be more effective, strategies should be tailored; that is, selected and designed to address specific determinants which may influence implementation in a given context. Despite the growing popularity of tailoring the concept is ill-defined, and the way in which tailoring is applied can vary across studies or lack detail when reported. There has been less focus on the part of tailoring where stakeholders prioritise determinants and select strategies, and the way in which theory, evidence and stakeholders' perspectives should be combined to make decisions during the process. Typically, tailoring is evaluated based on the effectiveness of the tailored strategy, we do not have a clear sense of the mechanisms through which tailoring works, or how to measure the "success" of the tailoring process. We lack an understanding of how stakeholders can be involved effectively in tailoring and the influence of different approaches on the outcome of tailoring. Our research programme, CUSTOMISE (Comparing and Understanding Tailoring Methods for Implementation Strategies in healthcare) will address some of these outstanding questions and generate evidence on the feasibility, acceptability, and efficiency of different tailoring approaches, and build capacity in implementation science in Ireland, developing and delivering training and supports for, and network of, researchers and implementation practitioners. The evidence generated across the studies conducted as part of CUSTOMISE will bring greater clarity, consistency, coherence, and transparency to tailoring, a key process in implementation science.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sheena M McHugh
- School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Fiona Riordan
- School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Claire Kerins
- School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Geoff Curran
- University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA
| | - Cara C Lewis
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Justin Presseau
- Clinical Epidemiology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Luke Wolfenden
- College of Medicine, Health and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
| | - Byron J Powell
- Division of Infectious Diseases, John T. Milliken Department of Medicine, School of Medicine,, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
- Center for Mental Health Services Research, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
- Center for Dissemination & Implementation, Institute for Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
McHugh SM, Riordan F, Curran GM, Lewis CC, Wolfenden L, Presseau J, Lengnick-Hall R, Powell BJ. Conceptual tensions and practical trade-offs in tailoring implementation interventions. FRONTIERS IN HEALTH SERVICES 2022; 2:974095. [PMID: 36925816 PMCID: PMC10012756 DOI: 10.3389/frhs.2022.974095] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2022] [Accepted: 10/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
Tailored interventions have been shown to be effective and tailoring is a popular process with intuitive appeal for researchers and practitioners. However, the concept and process are ill-defined in implementation science. Descriptions of how tailoring has been applied in practice are often absent or insufficient in detail. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to synthesize and replicate efforts. It also hides the trade-offs for researchers and practitioners that are inherent in the process. In this article we juxtapose the growing prominence of tailoring with four key questions surrounding the process. Specifically, we ask: (1) what constitutes tailoring and when does it begin and end?; (2) how is it expected to work?; (3) who and what does the tailoring process involve?; and (4) how should tailoring be evaluated? We discuss these questions as a call to action for better reporting and further research to bring clarity, consistency, and coherence to tailoring, a key process in implementation science.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Fiona Riordan
- School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Geoff M. Curran
- Department of Pharmacy Practice and Psychiatry, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States
| | - Cara C. Lewis
- MacColl Center for Health Care Innovation, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Luke Wolfenden
- College of Medicine, Health and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
| | - Justin Presseau
- Clinical Epidemiology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Rebecca Lengnick-Hall
- Center for Mental Health Services Research, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States
| | - Byron J. Powell
- Center for Mental Health Services Research, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States
- Center for Dissemination and Implementation, Institute for Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States
- Division of Infectious Diseases, John T. Milliken Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Lewis CC, Boyd MR, Marti CN, Albright K. Mediators of measurement-based care implementation in community mental health settings: results from a mixed-methods evaluation. Implement Sci 2022; 17:71. [PMID: 36271404 PMCID: PMC9587549 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-022-01244-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2022] [Accepted: 10/05/2022] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Tailored implementation approaches are touted as superior to standardized ones with the reasoning that tailored approaches afford opportunities to select strategies to resolve determinants of the local context. However, results from implementation trials on this topic are equivocal. Therefore, it is important to explore relevant contextual factors that function as determinants to evaluate if they are improved by tailoring and subsequently associated with changes in implementation outcomes (i.e., via statistical mediation) to better understand how tailoring achieves (or does not achieve) its effects. The present study examined the association between a tailored and standardized implementation approach, contextual factors that might mediate change, and a target implementation outcome in an initiative to implement measurement-based care (specifically the clinical integration of the Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9] for depression) in a community mental health organization. Methods Using a cluster randomized control design, twelve community-based mental health clinics were assigned to a tailored or standardized implementation group. Clinicians completed a self-report battery assessing contextual factors that served as candidate mediators informed by the Framework for Dissemination at three time points: baseline, 5 months after active implementation support, and 10 months after sustainment monitoring. A subset of clinicians also participated in focus groups at 5 months. The routine use of the PHQ-9 (implementation outcome) was monitored during the 10-month sustainment period. Multi-level mediation analyses assessed the association between the implementation group and contextual factors and the association between contextual factors and PHQ-9 completion. Quantitative results were then elaborated by analyzing qualitative data from exemplar sites. Results Although tailored clinics outperformed standard clinics in terms of PHQ-9 completion at the end of active implementation, these group differences disappeared post sustainment monitoring. Perhaps related to this, no significant mediators emerged from our quantitative analyses. Exploratory qualitative analyses of focus group content emphasized the importance of support from colleagues, supervisors, and leadership when implementing clinical innovations in practice. Conclusions Although rates of PHQ-9 completion improved across the study, their sustained levels were roughly equivalent across groups and low overall. No mediators were established using quantitative methods; however, several partial quantitative pathways, as well as themes from the qualitative data, reveal fruitful areas for future research. Trial registration Standardized
versus tailored implementation of measurement-based care for depression. ClinicalTrials.gov
NCT02266134, first posted on October
16, 2014
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cara C Lewis
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1600, WA, 98101, Seattle, USA. .,Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, & Department of Health Systems and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, 325 Ninth Street, Seattle, WA, 98104, USA.
| | - Meredith R Boyd
- Department of Psychology, University of California Los Angeles, 502 Portola Plaza, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA
| | | | - Karen Albright
- Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 1635 Aurora Court, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA.,Denver-Seattle Center of Innovation, Department of Veterans Affairs, 1700 N. Wheeling ST, CO, P1-15180045, Aurora, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Wolfenden L, McCrabb S, Barnes C, O'Brien KM, Ng KW, Nathan NK, Sutherland R, Hodder RK, Tzelepis F, Nolan E, Williams CM, Yoong SL. Strategies for enhancing the implementation of school-based policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco or alcohol use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 8:CD011677. [PMID: 36036664 PMCID: PMC9422950 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011677.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Several school-based interventions are effective in improving child diet and physical activity, and preventing excessive weight gain, and tobacco or harmful alcohol use. However, schools are frequently unsuccessful in implementing such evidence-based interventions. OBJECTIVES 1. To evaluate the benefits and harms of strategies aiming to improve school implementation of interventions to address student diet, physical activity, tobacco or alcohol use, and obesity. 2. To evaluate the benefits and harms of strategies to improve intervention implementation on measures of student diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco use or alcohol use; describe their cost or cost-effectiveness; and any harms of strategies on schools, school staff or students. SEARCH METHODS We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was between 1 September 2016 and 30 April 2021 to identify any relevant trials published since the last published review. SELECTION CRITERIA We defined 'Implementation' as the use of strategies to adopt and integrate evidence-based health interventions and to change practice patterns within specific settings. We included any trial (randomised controlled trial (RCT) or non-randomised controlled trial (non-RCT)) conducted at any scale, with a parallel control group that compared a strategy to implement policies or practices to address diet, physical activity, overweight or obesity, tobacco or alcohol use by students to 'no intervention', 'usual' practice or a different implementation strategy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane methods. Given the large number of outcomes reported, we selected and included the effects of a single outcome measure for each trial for the primary (implementation) and secondary (student health behaviour and obesity) outcomes using a decision hierarchy. Where possible, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) to account for variable outcome measures with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For RCTs, we conducted meta-analyses of primary and secondary outcomes using a random-effects model, or in instances where there were between two and five studies, a fixed-effect model. The synthesis of the effects for non-randomised studies followed the 'Synthesis without meta-analysis' (SWiM) guidelines. MAIN RESULTS We included an additional 11 trials in this update bringing the total number of included studies in the review to 38. Of these, 22 were conducted in the USA. Twenty-six studies used RCT designs. Seventeen trials tested strategies to implement healthy eating, 12 physical activity and six a combination of risk factors. Just one trial sought to increase the implementation of interventions to delay initiation or reduce the consumption of alcohol. All trials used multiple implementation strategies, the most common being educational materials, educational outreach and educational meetings. The overall certainty of evidence was low and ranged from very low to moderate for secondary review outcomes. Pooled analyses of RCTs found, relative to a control, the use of implementation strategies may result in a large increase in the implementation of interventions in schools (SMD 1.04, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.34; 22 RCTs, 1917 participants; low-certainty evidence). For secondary outcomes we found, relative to control, the use of implementation strategies to support intervention implementation may result in a slight improvement on measures of student diet (SMD 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.15; 11 RCTs, 16,649 participants; low-certainty evidence) and physical activity (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.19; 9 RCTs, 16,389 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effects on obesity probably suggest little to no difference (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.02; 8 RCTs, 18,618 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The effects on tobacco use are very uncertain (SMD -0.03, 95% CIs -0.23 to 0.18; 3 RCTs, 3635 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One RCT assessed measures of student alcohol use and found strategies to support implementation may result in a slight increase in use (odds ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.56; P = 0.60; 2105 participants). Few trials reported the economic evaluations of implementation strategies, the methods of which were heterogeneous and evidence graded as very uncertain. A lack of consistent terminology describing implementation strategies was an important limitation of the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The use of implementation strategies may result in large increases in implementation of interventions, and slight improvements in measures of student diet, and physical activity. Further research is required to assess the impact of implementation strategies on such behavioural- and obesity-related outcomes, including on measures of alcohol use, where the findings of one trial suggest it may slightly increase student risk. Given the low certainty of the available evidence for most measures further research is required to guide efforts to facilitate the translation of evidence into practice in this setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luke Wolfenden
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, NSW, Australia
| | - Sam McCrabb
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
| | - Courtney Barnes
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
| | - Kate M O'Brien
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
| | - Kwok W Ng
- Physical Activity for Health Research Cluster, Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
- School of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Eastern Finland, Joensu, Finland
| | - Nicole K Nathan
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, NSW, Australia
| | - Rachel Sutherland
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, NSW, Australia
| | - Rebecca K Hodder
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, NSW, Australia
| | - Flora Tzelepis
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia
| | - Erin Nolan
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia
| | - Christopher M Williams
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, NSW, Australia
- Musculoskeletal Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Sze Lin Yoong
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Beidas RS, Dorsey S, Lewis CC, Lyon AR, Powell BJ, Purtle J, Saldana L, Shelton RC, Stirman SW, Lane-Fall MB. Promises and pitfalls in implementation science from the perspective of US-based researchers: learning from a pre-mortem. Implement Sci 2022; 17:55. [PMID: 35964095 PMCID: PMC9375077 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-022-01226-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 26.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2021] [Accepted: 07/20/2022] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Implementation science is at a sufficiently advanced stage that it is appropriate for the field to reflect on progress thus far in achieving its vision, with a goal of charting a path forward. In this debate, we offer such reflections and report on potential threats that might stymie progress, as well as opportunities to enhance the success and impact of the field, from the perspective of a group of US-based researchers. MAIN BODY Ten mid-career extramurally funded US-based researchers completed a "pre-mortem" or a group brainstorming exercise that leverages prospective hindsight to imagine that an event has already occurred and to generate an explanation for it - to reduce the likelihood of a poor outcome. We came to consensus on six key themes related to threats and opportunities for the field: (1) insufficient impact, (2) too much emphasis on being a "legitimate science," (3) re-creation of the evidence-to-practice gap, (4) difficulty balancing accessibility and field coherence, (5) inability to align timelines and priorities with partners, and (6) overly complex implementation strategies and approaches. CONCLUSION We submit this debate piece to generate further discussion with other implementation partners as our field continues to develop and evolve. We hope the key opportunities identified will enhance the future of implementation research in the USA and spark discussion across international groups. We will continue to learn with humility about how best to implement with the goal of achieving equitable population health impact at scale.
Collapse
|
11
|
Adsul P, Chambers D, Brandt HM, Fernandez ME, Ramanadhan S, Torres E, Leeman J, Baquero B, Fleischer L, Escoffery C, Emmons K, Soler M, Oh A, Korn AR, Wheeler S, Shelton RC. Grounding implementation science in health equity for cancer prevention and control. Implement Sci Commun 2022; 3:56. [PMID: 35659151 PMCID: PMC9164317 DOI: 10.1186/s43058-022-00311-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2021] [Accepted: 05/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The past decade of research has seen theoretical and methodological advances in both implementation science and health equity research, opening a window of opportunity for facilitating and accelerating cross-disciplinary exchanges across these fields that have largely operated in siloes. In 2019 and 2020, the National Cancer Institute's Consortium for Cancer Implementation Science convened an action group focused on 'health equity and context' to identify opportunities to advance implementation science. In this paper, we present a narrative review and synthesis of the relevant literature at the intersection of health equity and implementation science, highlight identified opportunities (i.e., public goods) by the action group for advancing implementation science in cancer prevention and control, and integrate the two by providing key recommendations for future directions. DISCUSSION In the review and synthesis of the literature, we highlight recent advances in implementation science, relevant to promoting health equity (e.g., theories/models/frameworks, adaptations, implementation strategies, study designs, implementation determinants, and outcomes). We acknowledge the contributions from the broader field of health equity research and discuss opportunities for integration and synergy with implementation science, which include (1) articulating an explicit focus on health equity for conducting and reviewing implementation science; (2) promoting an explicit focus on health equity in the theories, models, and frameworks guiding implementation science; and (3) identifying methods for understanding and documenting influences on the context of implementation that incorporate a focus on equity. To advance the science of implementation with a focus on health equity, we reflect on the essential groundwork needed to promote bi-directional learning between the fields of implementation science and health equity research and recommend (1) building capacity among researchers and research institutions for health equity-focused and community-engaged implementation science; (2) incorporating health equity considerations across all key implementation focus areas (e.g., adaptations, implementation strategies, study design, determinants, and outcomes); and (3) continuing a focus on transdisciplinary opportunities in health equity research and implementation science. We believe that these recommendations can help advance implementation science by incorporating an explicit focus on health equity in the context of cancer prevention and control and beyond.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Prajakta Adsul
- Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM USA
| | - David Chambers
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD USA
| | - Heather M. Brandt
- HPV Cancer Prevention Program, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, TN USA
| | - Maria E. Fernandez
- Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research, School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, USA
| | | | - Essie Torres
- East Carolina University, 2309 Carol Belk Bldg, Greenville, NC 27858 USA
| | | | - Barbara Baquero
- University of Washington, 3980 15th Ave. NE, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
| | | | - Cam Escoffery
- Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
| | - Karen Emmons
- Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115 USA
| | - Montserrat Soler
- Ob/Gyn and Women’s Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH USA
| | - April Oh
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA
| | - Ariella R. Korn
- Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program, Implementation Science, Office of the Director, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, USA
| | - Stephanie Wheeler
- Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Drive, CB #7411, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
| | - Rachel C. Shelton
- Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health, 722 W 168th Street, New York, NY 10032 USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Fishman J, Yang C, Mandell DS. A review of attitude research that is specific, accurate, and comprehensive within its stated scope: responses to Aarons. Implement Sci 2022; 17:29. [PMID: 35534829 PMCID: PMC9088109 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-022-01200-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2022] [Accepted: 03/23/2022] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica Fishman
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3535 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. .,Message Effects Lab at Annenberg School, University of Pennsylvania, 3620 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
| | - Catherine Yang
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3535 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| | - David S Mandell
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3535 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Bell-Brown A, Chew L, Weiner BJ, Strate L, Balmadrid B, Lewis CC, Hannon P, Inadomi JM, Ramsey SD, Issaka RB. Operationalizing a Rideshare Intervention for Colonoscopy Completion: Barriers, Facilitators, and Process Recommendations. FRONTIERS IN HEALTH SERVICES 2022; 1:799816. [PMID: 35128543 PMCID: PMC8817893 DOI: 10.3389/frhs.2021.799816] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Transportation is a common barrier to colonoscopy completion for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The study aims to identify the barriers, facilitators, and process recommendations to implement a rideshare non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) intervention following colonoscopy completion within a safety-net healthcare setting. METHODS We used informal stakeholder engagement, story boards - a novel user-centered design technique, listening sessions and the nominal group technique to identify the barriers, facilitators, and process to implementing a rideshare NEMT program following colonoscopy completion in a large safety-net healthcare system. RESULTS Barriers to implementing a rideshare NEMT intervention for colonoscopy completion included: inability to expand an existing NEMT program beyond Medicaid patients and lack of patient chaperones with rideshare NEMT programs. Facilitators included: commercially available rideshare NEMT platforms that were lower cost and had shorter wait times than the alternative of taxis. Operationalizing and implementing a rideshare NEMT intervention in our healthcare system required the following steps: 1) identifying key stakeholders, 2) engaging stakeholder groups in discussion to identify barriers and solutions, 3) obtaining institutional sign-off, 4) developing a process for reviewing and selecting a rideshare NEMT program, 5) executing contracts, 6) developing a standard operating procedure and 7) training clinic staff to use the rideshare platform. DISCUSSION Rideshare NEMT after procedural sedation is administered may improve colonoscopy completion rates and provide one solution to inadequate CRC screening. If successful, our rideshare model could be broadly applicable to other safety-net health systems, populations with high social needs, and settings where procedural sedation is administered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ari Bell-Brown
- Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Lisa Chew
- Department of Internal medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Bryan J Weiner
- Department of Health Systems and Population Health, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Lisa Strate
- Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Bryan Balmadrid
- Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Cara C Lewis
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Peggy Hannon
- Department of Health Systems and Population Health, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - John M Inadomi
- Department of Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| | - Scott D Ramsey
- Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States.,Department of Internal medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Rachel B Issaka
- Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States.,Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States.,Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
An Implementation Science Laboratory as One Approach to Whole System Improvement: A Canadian Healthcare Perspective. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2021; 18:ijerph182312681. [PMID: 34886408 PMCID: PMC8656644 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182312681] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2021] [Revised: 11/27/2021] [Accepted: 11/28/2021] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
Implementation science (IS) has emerged as an integral component for evidence-based whole system improvement. IS studies the best methods to promote the systematic uptake of evidence-based interventions into routine practice to improve the quality and effectiveness of health service delivery and patient care. IS laboratories (IS labs) are one mechanism to integrate implementation science as an evidence-based approach to whole system improvement and to support a learning health system. This paper aims to examine if IS labs are a suitable approach to whole system improvement. We retrospectively analyzed an existing IS lab (Alberta, Canada’s Implementation Science Collaborative) to assess the potential of IS labs to perform as a whole system approach to improvement and to identify key activities and considerations for designing IS labs specifically to support learning health systems. Results from our evaluation show the extent to which IS labs support learning health systems through enabling infrastructures for system-wide improvement and research.
Collapse
|