CENTER-IT: a novel methodology for adapting multi-level interventions using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-a case example of a school-supervised asthma intervention

Development of a method for Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI): a modified Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Intervention adaptation is often necessary to improve the fit between evidence-based practices/programs and implementation contexts. Existing frameworks describe intervention adaptation processes but do not provide detailed steps for prospectively designing adaptations, are designed for researchers, and require substantial time and resources to complete. A pragmatic approach to guide implementers through developing and assessing adaptations in local contexts is needed. The goal of this project was to develop Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI), a method for intervention adaptation that leverages human centered design methods and is tailored to the needs of intervention implementers working in applied settings with limited time and resources.

METHOD

MODIFI was iteratively developed via a mixed-methods modified Delphi process. Feedback was collected from 43 implementation research and practice experts. Two rounds of data collection gathered quantitative ratings of acceptability and inclusion (Round 1) and feasibility (Round 2), as well as qualitative feedback regarding MODIFI revisions analyzed using conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

In Round 1, most participants rated all proposed components as essential but identified important avenues for revision which were incorporated into MODIFI prior to Round 2. Round 2 emphasized feasibility, where ratings were generally high and fewer substantive revisions were recommended. Round 2 changes largely surrounded operationalization of terms/processes and sequencing of content. Results include a detailed presentation of the final version of the three-step MODIFI method (Step 1: Learn about the users, local context, and intervention; Step 2: Adapt the intervention; Step 3: Evaluate the adaptation) along with a case example of its application.

DISCUSSION

MODIFI is a pragmatic method that was developed to extend the contributions of other research-based adaptation theories, models, and frameworks while integrating methods that are tailored to the needs of intervention implementers. Guiding teams to tailor evidence-based interventions to their local context may extend for whom, where, and under what conditions an intervention can be effective.

Development of a method for Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI): A modified Delphi study

Background

Intervention adaptation is often necessary to improve the fit between evidence-based practices/programs and implementation contexts. Existing frameworks describe intervention adaptation processes but do not provide detailed steps for prospectively designing adaptations, are designed for researchers, and require substantial time and resources to complete. A pragmatic approach to guide implementers through developing and assessing adaptations in local contexts is needed. The goal of this project was to develop Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI), a method for intervention adaptation that leverages human centered design methods and is tailored to the needs of intervention implementers working in applied settings with limited time and resources.

Method

MODIFI was iteratively developed via a mixed-methods modified Delphi process. Feedback was collected from 43 implementation research and practice experts. Two rounds of data collection gathered quantitative ratings of acceptability (Round 1) and feasibility (Round 2), as well as qualitative feedback regarding MODIFI revisions analyzed using conventional content analysis.

Results

In Round 1, most participants rated all proposed components as essential but identified important avenues for revision which were incorporated into MODIFI prior to Round 2. Round 2 emphasized feasibility, where ratings were generally high and fewer substantive revisions were recommended. Round 2 changes largely surrounded operationalization of terms/processes and sequencing of content. Results include a detailed presentation of the final version of the three-step MODIFI method (Step 1: Learn about the users, local context, and intervention; Step 2: Adapt the intervention; Step 3: Evaluate the adaptation) along with a case example of its application.

Discussion

MODIFI is a pragmatic method that was developed to extend the contributions of other research-based adaptation theories, models, and frameworks while integrating methods that are tailored to the needs of intervention implementers. Guiding teams to tailor evidence-based interventions to their local context may extend for whom, where, and under what conditions an intervention can be effective.

Recommendations for post-implementation adaptations to optimize family navigation in pediatric primary care: a qualitative study with parents and navigators

BACKGROUND

Family Navigation (FN) is an evidence-based care management intervention designed to reduce disparities in access to care by providing families with individually tailored support and care coordination. Early data suggest FN is effective, but effectiveness is significantly influenced by both contextual (e.g. setting) and individual (e.g., ethnicity) variables. To better understand how FN could be tailored to address this variability in effectiveness, we set forth to explore proposed adaptations to FN by both navigators and families who received FN.

METHODS

This study was a nested qualitative study set within a larger randomized clinical trial of FN to improve access to autism diagnostic services in urban pediatric primary care practices in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut serving low-income, racial and ethnic minority families. Following FN implementation, key informant interviews were conducted based on the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded (FRAME) with a purposeful sample of parents of children who received FN (n = 21) and navigators (n = 7). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and were coded using framework-guided rapid analysis to categorize proposed adaptations to FN.

RESULTS

Parents and navigators proposed 38 adaptations in four domains: 1) content of the intervention (n = 18), 2) context of the intervention (n = 10), 3) training and evaluation (n = 6), and 4) implementation and scale-up (n = 4). The most frequently endorsed adaptation recommendations focused on content (e.g., lengthening FN, providing parents with additional education on autism and parenting children with autism) and implementation (e.g., increasing access to navigation). Although probes targeted critical feedback, parents and navigators were overwhelmingly positive about FN.

CONCLUSIONS

This study builds upon prior FN effectiveness and implementation research by providing concrete areas for adaptation and refinement of the intervention. Recommendations by parents and navigators have the potential to inform improvement of existing navigation programs and development of new programs in similarly underserved populations. These findings are critical as adaptation (cultural and otherwise) is an important principle in the field of health equity. Ultimately, adaptations will need to be tested to determine clinical and implementation effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, registration number NCT02359084, February 9, 2015.

Updates in school-based asthma management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

School-based asthma management is an important component of pediatric asthma care that has the potential to provide more universal evidence-based asthma care to children and mitigate asthma-related health inequities. The purpose of this review is to highlight relevant developments in school-based asthma management over the past 2 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

There have been considerable recent scientific advances in school-based asthma management including robust clinical trials of environmental interventions in the classroom setting, school-nurse led interventions, stock albuterol policy changes, school-based telemedicine approaches and innovative methods to engage community stakeholders in research that have pushed the frontiers of school-based asthma care.

SUMMARY

Recent scientific work in school-based asthma management demonstrates the potential power of schools in providing access to guideline-based asthma care for all children with asthma and in improving their health outcomes. Future work should focus on the evaluation of methods to promote the adoption of school-based asthma management strategies in real-world practice and support evidence-based policy change and strategic partnerships to improve asthma health outcomes and produce meaningful public health impact for diverse children and families.

Strategies to improve the recruitment and retention of underserved children and families in clinical trials: A case example of a school-supervised asthma therapy pilot

BACKGROUND

Due to underrepresentation of racial/ethnic minority and low-income groups in clinical studies, there is a call to improve the recruitment and retention of these populations in research. Pilot studies can test recruitment and retention practices for better inclusion of medically underserved children and families in subsequent clinical trials. We examined this using a school-based asthma intervention, in preparation for a larger clinical trial in which our goal is to include an underserved study population.

METHODS

We recruited children with poorly controlled asthma in a two-site pilot cluster randomized controlled trial of school-supervised asthma therapy versus enhanced usual care (receipt of an educational asthma workbook). We sought a study population with a high percentage of children and families from racial/ethnic minority and low-income groups. The primary outcome of the pilot trial was recruitment/retention over 12 months. Strategies used to facilitate recruitment/retention of this study population included engaging pre-trial multi-level stakeholders, selecting trial sites with high percentages of underserved children and families, training diverse medical providers to recruit participants, conducting remote trial assessments, and providing multi-lingual study materials.

RESULTS

Twenty-six children [42.3% female, 11.5% Black, 30.8% Multiracial (Black & other), 76.9% Hispanic, and 92.3% with family income below $40,000] and their caregivers were enrolled in the study, which represents 55.3% of those initially referred by their provider, with 96.2%, 92.3%, and 96.2% retention at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Targeted strategies facilitated the inclusion of a medically underserved population of children and families in our pilot study, prior to expanding to a larger trial.