Assessing the scalability of innovations in primary care: a cross-sectional study

Identifying innovations produced by primary health care centers and evaluating their scalability: the SPRINT Occitanie cross-sectional study in France

BACKGROUND

Practice-based research is one of the levers identified by the World Health Organization (WHO) to strengthen primary health care. The scaling of health and social care innovations has the potential to reduce inequities in health and to expand the benefits of effective innovations. It is now rapidly gaining the attention of decision-makers in health and social care, particularly in high-income countries. To meet the challenge of declining numbers of primary care physicians in France, Multi-professional Healthcare Centers (MHC) were created to bring together medical and paramedical professionals. They are a source of innovation in meeting the health challenges facing our populations. Specific methodology exists to identify health innovations and assess their scalability. A working group, including end-users and specialists, has adapted this methodology to the French context and the University department of general practice of Montpellier-Nîmes (France) launched a pilot study in Occitanie, a French region.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and evaluate the scalability of innovations produced in pluri-professional healthcare centers in the Occitanie region.

METHODS

A pilot, observational, cross-sectional study was carried out. The SPRINT Occitanie study was based on a questionnaire with two sections: MHC information and the modified Innovation Scalability Self-Administered Questionnaire (ISSaQ), version 2020. The study population was all 279 MHC in the Occitanie region.

RESULTS

19.3% (54) of MHC in the Occitanie region, responded fully or incompletely to the questionnaire. Four out of 5 U-MHCs were represented. Five MHC presented multiple innovations. The average per MHC was 1.94 (± 2.4) innovations. 26% of them (n = 9) had high scalability, 34% (n = 12) medium scalability and 40% (n = 14) low scalability. The main innovation represented (86%) were healthcare program, service, and tool.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cross-sectional study, a quarter of the innovations were highly scalable. We were able to demonstrate the importance of MHC teams in working on primary care research through the prism of innovations. Primary-care innovations must be detected, evaluated, and extracted to improve their impact on their healthcare system.

Strengthening health system leadership in practice

The field of health leadership is shifting rapidly, and there is an opportunity to learn with health leaders about what is needed to support health leadership education, research, and practice. In 2022, to augment student feedback and faculty praxis, Royal Roads University conducted 12 virtual interviews with senior health system leaders across various settings to learn how health leaders can better respond to emerging and future leadership needs and priorities facing health systems. Findings from this study informed the development of a health-specific elective for the Master of Arts in Leadership, Health Specialization program entitled Considerations for Health Systems Renewal. This elective explores the following topics that emerged from this research study: (1) an orientation to possibility; (2) emerging strategic human resource concerns; (3) healthcare innovation; (4) relational and social systems leadership; (5) polarity thinking; (6) trauma-informed leadership; and (7) Canadian healthcare networks. In this article, we share our research process and findings to arrive at these recommendations.

Informing the development of the SUCCEED reporting guideline for studies on the scaling of health interventions: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Quality reporting contributes to effective translation of health research in practice and policy. As an initial step in the development of a reporting guideline for scaling, the Standards for reporting stUdies of sCaling evidenCEd-informED interventions (SUCCEED), we performed a systematic review to identify relevant guidelines and compile a list of potential items.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review according to Cochrane method guidelines. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, from their respective inceptions. We also searched websites of relevant organizations and Google. We included any document that provided instructions or recommendations, e.g., reporting guideline, checklist, guidance, framework, standard; could inform the design or reporting of scaling interventions; and related to the health sector. We extracted characteristics of the included guidelines and assessed their methodological quality using a 3-item internal validity assessment tool. We extracted all items from the guidelines and classified them according to the main sections of reporting guidelines (title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and other information). We performed a narrative synthesis based on descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 7704 records screened (published between 1999 and 2019), we included 39 guidelines, from which data were extracted from 57 reports. Of the 39 guidelines, 17 were for designing scaling interventions and 22 for reporting implementation interventions. At least one female author was listed in 31 guidelines, and 21 first authors were female. None of the authors belonged to the patient stakeholder group. Only one guideline clearly identified a patient as having participated in the consensus process. More than half the guidelines (56%) had been developed using an evidence-based process. In total, 750 items were extracted from the 39 guidelines and distributed into the 7 main sections.

CONCLUSION

Relevant items identified could inform the development of a reporting guideline for scaling studies of evidence-based health interventions. This and our assessment of guidelines could contribute to better reporting in the science and practice of scaling.

Engagement of Older Adults Receiving Home Care Services and Their Caregivers in Health Decisions in Partnership With Clinical Teams: Protocol for a Multimethod Study to Prioritize and Culturally Adapt Decision Aids for Home Care

BACKGROUND

Older adults (people aged 65 years and older) face many difficult decisions. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) can help them and their families make informed value-congruent decisions. Some PtDAs have been developed for the home care context, but little is known about scaling them for use with older adults in a different culture.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to (1) assess the scalability of existing PtDAs for older adults in the home care context; (2) prioritize those that best match the decisional needs of older adults in home care; and (3) culturally adapt the prioritized PtDAs so they can be scaled successfully to the Quebec health care system.

METHODS

This multimethod study includes 3 phases. All phases will be overseen by a steering committee of older adults, caregivers, health professionals, decision makers, community organization representatives, and researchers with the needed expertise. In phase 1, we will use the Innovation Scalability Self-administered Questionnaire, a validated scalability self-assessment tool, to assess the scalability of 33 PtDAs previously identified in a systematic review. Based on their scalability, their quality (based on the International Patient Decision Aids Standards), and the importance of the decision point, we will retain approximately a third of these. In phase 2, we will conduct a 2-round web-based Delphi to prioritize the PtDAs selected in phase 1. Using a snowball recruitment strategy, we aim to recruit 60 Delphi participants in the province of Quebec, including older adults, caregivers, health professionals, decision makers involved in home care services, and PtDA experts. In the first round, we will ask participants to rate the importance of several PtDA decision points according to various criteria such as prevalence and difficulty on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not important to 5=very important). Approximately 6 of the highest-rated PtDAs will be retained for presentation in the second round, and we will select up to 3 PtDAs judged as having the highest priority for cultural adaptation. In phase 3, using the Chenel framework and user-centered design methods, we will update and adapt the PtDAs to the Quebec health care system and integrate these PtDAs into an interprofessional shared decision-making training program for home care teams. The adapted PtDAs will respect the International Patient Decision Aids Standards criteria.

RESULTS

This study was funded in March 2022 by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Data collection for the web-based Delphi began in October 2023. Results are expected to be published in May 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

This project will provide relevant and culturally appropriate decision support tools for older adults making difficult decisions and their home care teams that will be ready for scaling across the province of Quebec.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/53150.

Assessing the sustainability and scalability of a diabetes eHealth innovation: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

To date, little is known about the sustainability and scalability of MyDiabetesPlan, an eHealth innovation designed to facilitate shared decision-making within diabetes care. To avoid the possibility of its short-lived implementation and promote wider adoption so as to promote patient-centred diabetes care, it is critical to understand MyDiabetesPlan's sustainability and scalability in order to ensure its long-term impact at a greater scale. We sought to identify the sustainability and scalability potential of MyDiabetesPlan and its limiting factors.

METHODS

Using a concurrent triangulation mixed-methods approach, data were collected from 20 individuals involved in the development and implementation of MyDiabetesPlan. The National Health Services Sustainability Model (NHSSM) and the Innovation Scalability Self-administered Questionnaire (ISSaQ) were administered using a 'think-aloud' approach and subsequently, short semi-structured interviews were conducted. Mean aggregate scores and stakeholder-specific scores were generated for the NHSSM and ISSaQ, to quantitatively determine facilitating and limiting factors to sustainability and scalability. Content analysis occurred iteratively with qualitative data, to examine commonalities and differences with the quantitative findings.

RESULTS

The top facilitating factor to sustaining MyDiabetesPlan was "Staff involvement and training to sustain the process.", whereas the top limiting factors were: "Adaptability of Improved Process", "Senior Leadership Engagement" and "Infrastructure for Sustainability". The top three facilitating factors for scale-up were "Acceptability", "Development with Theory" and "Consistency with Policy Directives." Conversely, the top three limiting factors were "Financial and Human Resources", "Achievable Adoption" and "Broad Reach". Qualitative findings corroborated the limiting/facilitating factors identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Addressing staff involvement throughout the dynamic care contexts, and resource constraints impacting scale-up can enhance the sustainability and scalability of MyDiabetesPlan. As such, future plans will focus on garnering organizational leadership buy-in and support, which may address the resource constraints associated with sustainability and scalability and improve the capacity for adequate staff involvement. eHealth researchers will be able to prioritize these limiting factors from the outset of their tool development to purposefully optimize its sustainability and scalability performance.

Development of the SPREAD framework to support the scaling of de-implementation strategies: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to increase the understanding of the scaling of de-implementation strategies by identifying the determinants of the process and developing a determinant framework.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This study has a mixed-methods design. First, we performed an integrative review to build a literature-based framework describing the determinants of the scaling of healthcare innovations and interventions. PubMed and EMBASE were searched for relevant studies from 1995 to December 2020. We systematically extracted the determinants of the scaling of interventions and developed a literature-based framework. Subsequently, this framework was discussed in four focus groups with national and international de-implementation experts. The literature-based framework was complemented by the findings of the focus group meetings and adapted for the scaling of de-implementation strategies.

RESULTS

The literature search resulted in 42 articles that discussed the determinants of the scaling of innovations and interventions. No articles described determinants specifically for de-implementation strategies. During the focus groups, all participants agreed on the relevance of the extracted determinants for the scaling of de-implementation strategies. The experts emphasised that while the determinants are relevant for various countries, the implications differ due to different contexts, cultures and histories. The analyses of the focus groups resulted in additional topics and determinants, namely, medical training, professional networks, interests of stakeholders, clinical guidelines and patients' perspectives. The results of the focus group meetings were combined with the literature framework, which together formed the supporting the scaling of de-implementation strategies (SPREAD) framework. The SPREAD framework includes determinants from four domains: (1) scaling plan, (2) external context, (3) de-implementation strategy and (4) adopters.

CONCLUSIONS

The SPREAD framework describes the determinants of the scaling of de-implementation strategies. These determinants are potential targets for various parties to facilitate the scaling of de-implementation strategies. Future research should validate these determinants of the scaling of de-implementation strategies.

Tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The last decade has seen growing interest in scaling up of innovations to strengthen healthcare systems. However, the lack of appropriate methods for determining their potential for scale-up is an unfortunate global handicap. Thus, we aimed to review tools proposed for assessing the scalability of innovations in health.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review following the COSMIN methodology. We included any empirical research which aimed to investigate the creation, validation or interpretability of a scalability assessment tool in health. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and ERIC from their inception to 20 March 2019. We also searched relevant websites, screened the reference lists of relevant reports and consulted experts in the field. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted eligible reports and assessed the methodological quality of tools. We summarized data using a narrative approach involving thematic syntheses and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

We identified 31 reports describing 21 tools. Types of tools included criteria (47.6%), scales (33.3%) and checklists (19.0%). Most tools were published from 2010 onwards (90.5%), in open-access sources (85.7%) and funded by governmental or nongovernmental organizations (76.2%). All tools were in English; four were translated into French or Spanish (19.0%). Tool creation involved single (23.8%) or multiple (19.0%) types of stakeholders, or stakeholder involvement was not reported (57.1%). No studies reported involving patients or the public, or reported the sex of tool creators. Tools were created for use in high-income countries (28.6%), low- or middle-income countries (19.0%), or both (9.5%), or for transferring innovations from low- or middle-income countries to high-income countries (4.8%). Healthcare levels included public or population health (47.6%), primary healthcare (33.3%) and home care (4.8%). Most tools provided limited information on content validity (85.7%), and none reported on other measurement properties. The methodological quality of tools was deemed inadequate (61.9%) or doubtful (38.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

We inventoried tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health. Existing tools are as yet of limited utility for assessing scalability in health. More work needs to be done to establish key psychometric properties of these tools. Trial registration We registered this review with PROSPERO (identifier: CRD42019107095).

Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review

Background

Interventions to change health professionals’ behaviour are often difficult to replicate. Incomplete reporting is a key reason and a source of waste in health research. We aimed to assess the reporting of shared decision making (SDM) interventions.

Methods

We extracted data from a 2017 Cochrane systematic review whose aim was to determine the effectiveness of interventions to increase the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. In a secondary analysis, we used the 12 items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to analyze quantitative data. We used a conceptual framework for implementation fidelity to analyze qualitative data, which added details to various TIDieR items (e.g. under “what materials?” we also reported on ease of access to materials). We used SAS 9.4 for all analyses.

Results

Of the 87 studies included in the 2017 Cochrane review, 83 were randomized trials, three were non-randomized trials, and one was a controlled before-and-after study. Items most completely reported were: “brief name” (87/87, 100%), “why” (rationale) (86/87, 99%), and “what” (procedures) (81/87, 93%). The least completely reported items (under 50%) were “materials” (29/87, 33%), “who” (23/87, 26%), and “when and how much” (18/87, 21%), as well as the conditional items: “tailoring” (8/87, 9%), “modifications” (3/87, 4%), and “how well (actual)” (i.e. delivered as planned?) (3/87, 3%). Interventions targeting patients were better reported than those targeting health professionals or both patients and health professionals, e.g. 84% of patient-targeted intervention studies reported “How”, (delivery modes), vs. 67% for those targeting health professionals and 32% for those targeting both. We also reported qualitative analyses for most items. Overall reporting of items for all interventions was 41.5%.

Conclusions

Reporting on all groups or components of SDM interventions was incomplete in most SDM studies published up to 2017. Our results provide guidance for authors on what elements need better reporting to improve the replicability of their SDM interventions.

Investments for effective functionality of health systems towards Universal Health Coverage in Africa: A scoping review

The health challenges in Africa underscore the importance of effectively investing in health systems. Unfortunately, there is no information on systems investments adequate for an effective functional health system. We aimed to address this by conducting a scoping review of existing evidence following the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis and preregistered with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/bvg4z). We included any empirical research describing interventions that contributed to the functionality of health systems in Africa or any low-income or lower-middle-income regions. We searched Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and ERIC from their inception, and hand-searched other relevant sources. We summarized data using a narrative approach involving thematic syntheses and descriptive statistics. We identified 554 unique reports describing 575 interventions, of which 495 reported evidence of effectiveness. Most interventions were undertaken in Africa (80.9%), covered multiple elements of health systems (median: 3), and focused on service delivery (77.4%) and health workforce (65.6%). Effective interventions contributed to improving single (35.6%) or multiple (64.4%) capacities of health systems: access to essential services (75.6%), quality of care (70.5%), demand for essential services (38.6%), or health systems resilience (13.5%). For example, telemedicine models which covered software (technologies) and hardware (health workers) elements were used as a strategy to address issues of access to essential services. We inventoried these effective interventions for improving health systems functionality in Africa. Further analyses could deepen understanding of how such interventions differ in their incorporation of evidence for potential scale across African countries.

Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives in health and social services: protocol for a scoping review and Delphi survey

BACKGROUND

The scale-up of evidence-based innovations is required to reduce waste and inequities in health and social services (HSS). However, it often tends to be a top-down process initiated by policy makers, and the values of the intended beneficiaries are forgotten. Involving multiple stakeholders including patients and the public in the scaling-up process is thus essential but highly complex. We propose to identify relevant strategies for meaningfully and equitably involving patients and the public in the science and practice of scaling up in HSS.

METHODS

We will adapt our overall method from the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Following this, we will perform a two-prong study design (knowledge synthesis and Delphi study) grounded in an integrated knowledge translation approach. This approach involves extensive participation of a network of stakeholders interested in patient and public involvement (PPI) in scaling up and a multidisciplinary steering committee. We will conduct a systematic scoping review following the methodology recommended in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers Manual. We will use the following eligibility criteria: (1) participants-any stakeholder involved in creating or testing a strategy for PPI; (2) intervention-any PPI strategy proposed for scaling-up initiatives; (3) comparator-no restriction; (4) outcomes: any process or outcome metrics related to PPI; and (5) setting-HSS. We will search electronic databases (e.g., Medline, Web of Science, Sociological Abstract) from inception onwards, hand search relevant websites, screen the reference lists of included records, and consult experts in the field. Two reviewers will independently select and extract eligible studies. We will summarize data quantitatively and qualitatively and report results using the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. We will conduct an online Delphi survey to achieve consensus on the relevant strategies for PPI in scaling-up initiatives in HSS. Participants will include stakeholders from low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We anticipate that three rounds will allow an acceptable degree of agreement on research priorities.

DISCUSSION

Our findings will advance understanding of how to meaningfully and equitably involve patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives for sustainable HSS.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

We registered this protocol with the Open Science Framework on August 19, 2020 ( https://osf.io/zqpx7/ ).