Longitudinal Use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to Evaluate the Creation of a Rural Center of Excellence in Transgender Health

Implementing evidence-based practices in rural settings: a scoping review of theories, models, and frameworks

Background

Rural healthcare has unique characteristics that affect the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based interventions. Numerous theories, models, and frameworks have been developed to guide implementation of healthcare interventions, though not specific to rural healthcare. The present scoping review sought to identify the theories, models, and frameworks most frequently applied to rural health and propose an approach to rural health research that harnesses selected constructs from these theories, models, and frameworks. This resulting synthesis can serve as a guide to researchers, policy makers, and clinicians seeking to employ commonly used theories, models, and frameworks to rural health.

Methods

We used the Scopus abstract indexing service to identify peer-reviewed literature citing one or more of theories, models, or frameworks used in dissemination and implementation research and including the word "rural" in the Title, Abstract, or Keywords. We screened the remaining titles and abstracts to ensure articles met additional inclusion criteria. We conducted a full review of the resulting 172 articles to ensure they identified one or more discrete theory, model, or framework applied to research or quality improvement projects. We extracted the theories, models, and frameworks and categorized these as process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, or evaluation frameworks.

Results

We retained 61 articles of which 28 used RE-AIM, 11 used Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) framework, eight used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and six used the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (iPARIHS). Additional theories, models, and frameworks were cited in three or fewer reports in the literature. The 14 theories, models, and frameworks cited in the literature were categorized as seven process models, four determinant frameworks, one evaluation framework, and one classic theory.

Conclusions

The RE-AIM framework was the most frequently cited framework in the rural health literature, followed by CBPR, CFIR, and iPARIHS. A notable advantage of RE-AIM in rural healthcare settings is the focus on reach as a specified outcome, given the challenges of engaging a geographically diffuse and often isolated population. We present a rationale for combining the strengths of these theories, models, and frameworks to guide a research agenda specific to rural healthcare research.

Systematic Review Registration

https://osf.io/fn2cd/.

Determinants of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Implementation in Transgender Populations: A Qualitative Scoping Review

We conducted a scoping review of contextual factors impeding uptake and adherence to pre-exposure prophylaxis in transgender communities as an in-depth analysis of the transgender population within a previously published systematic review. Using a machine learning screening process, title and abstract screening, and full-text review, the initial systematic review identified 353 articles for analysis. These articles were peer-reviewed, implementation-related studies of PrEP in the U.S. published after 2000. Twenty-two articles were identified in this search as transgender related. An additional eleven articles were identified through citations of these twenty-two articles, resulting in thirty-three articles in the current analysis. These thirty-three articles were qualitatively coded in NVivo using adapted constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research as individual codes. Codes were thematically assessed. We point to barriers of implementing PrEP, including lack of intentional dissemination efforts and patience assistance, structural factors, including sex work, racism, and access to gender affirming health care, and lack of provider training. Finally, over 60% of articles lumped cisgender men who have sex with men with trans women. Such articles included sub-samples of transgender individuals that were not representative. We point to areas of growth for the field in this regard.

Conceptualising centres of excellence: a scoping review of global evidence

OBJECTIVE

Globally, interest in excellence has grown exponentially, with public and private institutions shifting their attention from meeting targets to achieving excellence. Centres of Excellence (CoEs) are standing at the forefront of healthcare, research and innovations responding to the world's most complex problems. However, their potential is hindered by conceptual ambiguity. We conducted a global synthesis of the evidence to conceptualise CoEs.

DESIGN

Scoping review, following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and methodological enhancement by Levac et al and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Google Scholar and the Google engine until 1 January 2021.

ELIGIBILITY

Articles that describe CoE as the main theme.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 52 161 potential publications, with 78 articles met the eligibility criteria. The 78 articles were from 33 countries, of which 35 were from the USA, 3 each from Nigeria, South Africa, Spain and India, and 2 each from Ethiopia, Canada, Russia, Colombia, Sweden, Greece and Peru. The rest 17 were from various countries. The articles involved six thematic areas-healthcare, education, research, industry, information technology and general concepts on CoE. The analysis documented success stories of using the brand 'CoE'-an influential brand to stimulate best practices. We identified 12 essential foundations of CoE-specialised expertise; infrastructure; innovation; high-impact research; quality service; accreditation or standards; leadership; organisational structure; strategy; collaboration and partnership; sustainable funding or financial mechanisms; and entrepreneurship.

CONCLUSIONS

CoEs have significant scientific, political, economic and social impacts. However, there are inconsistent use and self-designation of the brand without approval by an independent, external process of evaluation and with high ambiguity between 'CoEs' and the ordinary 'institutions' or 'centres'. A comprehensive framework is needed to guide and inspire an institution as a CoE and to help government and funding institutions shape and oversee CoEs.