Public perspective on the governmental response, communication and trust in the governmental decisions in mitigating COVID-19 early in the pandemic across the G7 countries

The COVID-19 pandemic poses a threat to global health and security inciting governments with the responsibility to respond with measures that ensure the health and safety of their communities. We assessed public attitudes towards governmental actions to combat the COVID-19 pandemic in the G7 countries. Data were collected during 19th-21st March 2020, from 7005 Kantar's online panelists aged >16 years across the G7 countries: Canada, France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States. Data were post-stratified and weighted to match population distributions of the respective countries. Descriptive and multivariable analyses were conducted. Amongst the G7, Japan had the lowest level of approval of governmental response to the pandemic, rating governmental communication as good, and trusting governmental decisions (35.0%, 33.6%, and 38.0%, respectively), followed by the U.S. (52.9%, 64.6%, and 59.9%, respectively). Understanding of which measures one can personally take to help limit the spread of the coronavirus was significantly associated with approving governmental response (aOR = 2.88), rating government communication as good (aOR = 2.70) and trust in future governmental decisions (aOR = 2.73). Those who reported government/politicians and friends/family as their most trusted information source were more likely to report approval, higher rating, and/or trust toward governmental actions. Public attitudes towards governmental actions against COVID-19 varied substantially across the G7 countries and were associated with the understanding of measures and source of information that respondents most trusted. Timely and accurate communication is essential to enhance public engagement to control the COVID-19 pandemic.

Challenges to implementing the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control guidelines on tobacco cessation treatment: a qualitative analysis

AIM

To identify barriers to implementing the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Article 14 guidelines on tobacco dependence treatment (TDT).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey conducted from December 2014 to July 2015 to assess implementation of Article 14 recommendations.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Survey respondents (n = 127 countries) who completed an open-ended question on the 26-item survey.

MEASUREMENTS

The open-ended question asked the following: 'In your opinion, what are the main barriers or challenges to developing further tobacco dependence treatment in your country?'. We conducted thematic analysis of the responses.

FINDINGS

The most frequently reported barriers included a lack of health-care system infrastructure (n = 86) (e.g. treatment not integrated into primary care, lack of health-care worker training), low political priority (n = 66) and lack of funding (n = 51). The absence of strategic plans and national guidelines for Article 14 implementation emerged as subthemes of political priority. Also described as barriers were negative provider attitudes towards offering offer TDT (n = 11), policymakers' lack of awareness about the effectiveness and affordability of TDT (n = 5), public norms supporting tobacco use (n = 11), a lack of health-care leadership and expertise in the area of TDT (n = 6) and a lack of grassroots and multi-sector networks supporting policy implementation (n = 8). The analysis captured patterns of co-occurring themes that linked, for example, low levels of political support with a lack of funding necessary to develop health-care infrastructure and capacity to implement Article 14.

CONCLUSION

Important barriers to implementing the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Article 14 guidelines include lack of a health-care system infrastructure, low political priority and lack of funding.

The role of context in implementation research for non-communicable diseases: Answering the 'how-to' dilemma

Introduction

Understanding context and how this can be systematically assessed and incorporated is crucial to successful implementation. We describe how context has been assessed (including exploration or evaluation) in Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases (GACD) implementation research projects focused on improving health in people with or at risk of chronic disease and how contextual lessons were incorporated into the intervention or the implementation process.

Methods

Using a web-based semi-structured questionnaire, we conducted a cross-sectional survey to collect quantitative and qualitative data across GACD projects (n = 20) focusing on hypertension, diabetes and lung diseases. The use of context-specific data from project planning to evaluation was analyzed using mixed methods and a multi-layered context framework across five levels; 1) individual and family, 2) community, 3) healthcare setting, 4) local or district level, and 5) state or national level.

Results

Project teams used both qualitative and mixed methods to assess multiple levels of context (avg. = 4). Methodological approaches to assess context were identified as formal and informal assessments, engagement of stakeholders, use of locally adapted resources and materials, and use of diverse data sources. Contextual lessons were incorporated directly into the intervention by informing or adapting the intervention, improving intervention participation or improving communication with participants/stakeholders. Provision of services, equipment or information, continuous engagement with stakeholders, feedback for personnel to address gaps, and promoting institutionalization were themes identified to describe how contextual lessons are incorporated into the implementation process.

Conclusions

Context is regarded as critical and influenced the design and implementation of the GACD funded chronic disease interventions. There are different approaches to assess and incorporate context as demonstrated by this study and further research is required to systematically evaluate contextual approaches in terms of how they contribute to effectiveness or implementation outcomes.

An analysis of adaptations to multi-level intervention strategies to enhance implementation of clinical practice guidelines for treating tobacco use in dental care settings

Introduction

Our team conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial (DUET) that compared the effectiveness of three theory-driven, implementation strategies on dental provider adherence to tobacco dependence treatment guidelines (TDT). In this paper we describe the process of adapting the implementation strategies to the local context of participating dental public health clinics in New York City.

Methods

Eighteen dental clinics were randomized to one of three study arms testing several implementation strategies: Current Best Practices (CBP) (i.e. staff training, clinical reminder system and Quitline referral system); CBP + Performance Feedback (PF) (i.e. feedback reports on provider delivery of TDT); and CBP + PF + Pay-for-Performance (i.e. financial incentives for provision of TDT). Through an iterative process, we used Stirman's modification framework to classify, code and analyze modifications made to the implementation strategies.

Results

We identified examples of six of Stirman's twelve content modification categories and two of the four context modification categories. Content modifications were classified as: tailoring, tweaking or refining (49.8%), adding elements (14.1%), departing from the intervention (9.3%), loosening structure (4.4%), lengthening and extending (4.4%) and substituting elements (4.4%). Context modifications were classified as those related to personnel (7.9%) and to the format/channel (8.8%) of the intervention delivery. Common factors associated with adaptations that arose during the intervention included staff changes, time constraints, changes in leadership preferences and functional limitations of to the Electronic Dental Record.

Conclusions

This study offers guidance on how to capture intervention adaptation in the context of a multi-level intervention aimed at implementing sustainable changes to optimize TDT in varying public health dental settings.