Implementing lifestyle-related treatment modalities in osteoarthritis care: Identification of implementation strategies using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change matching tool

AIMS

Despite recommendations in international clinical guidelines, lifestyle-related treatment modalities (LRTMs) are currently underutilised in the conservative treatment of patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis. This study aimed to identify implementation strategies in order to address barriers to implementing LRTMs from the perspective of healthcare professionals (HCPs).

METHODS

The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) Implementation Strategy Matching Tool was applied. First, previously identified influencing factors among primary and secondary HCPs were mapped onto the corresponding CFIR constructs/subconstructs by two researchers. Second, the CFIR-based barriers relevant for all HCPs were entered into the tool. Third, the CFIR-based barriers specific to one or more subgroups of HCPs served as additional input for the tool. Finally, a selection of ERIC implementation strategies was made based on the tool's output.

RESULTS

Fourteen implementation strategies were selected. The strategy most endorsed by the tool was 'build a coalition'. Eight of the selected strategies belonged to the ERIC cluster 'develop stakeholder interrelationships'. Other strategies were part of the clusters 'use evaluative and iterative strategies' (n = 3), 'utilise financial strategies' (n = 2), and 'engage consumers' (n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings emphasise the importance of an interdisciplinary approach when addressing the implementation of LRTMs in osteoarthritis care. The final selection of implementation strategies forms the basis for a tailored implementation plan. Future work should focus on further operationalising the implementation strategies and evaluating the effectiveness of the resulting implementation plan.

Identifying implementation strategies to address barriers of implementing a school-located influenza vaccination program in Beijing

BACKGROUND

The school-located influenza vaccinations (SLIV) can increase influenza vaccination and reduce influenza infections among school-aged children. However, the vaccination rate has remained low and varied widely among schools in Beijing, China. This study aimed to ascertain barriers and facilitators of implementing SLIV and to identify implementation strategies for SLIV quality improvement programs in this context.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with diverse stakeholders (i.e., representatives of both the Department of Health and the Department of Education, school physicians, class headteachers, and parents) involved in SLIV implementation. Participants were identified by purposive and snowball sampling. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was adopted to facilitate data collection and analysis. Themes and subthemes regarding barriers and facilitators were generated using deductive and inductive approaches. Based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (CFIR-ERIC) matching tool, practical implementation strategies were proposed to address the identified barriers of SLIV delivery.

RESULTS

Twenty-four participants were interviewed. Facilitators included easy access to SLIV, clear responsibilities and close collaboration among government sectors, top-down authority, integrating SLIV into the routine of schools, and priority given to SLIV. The main barriers were parents' misconception, inefficient coordination for vaccine supply and vaccination dates, the lack of planning, and inadequate access to knowledge and information about the SLIV. CFIR-ERIC Matching tool suggested implementation strategies at the system (i.e., developing an implementation blueprint, and promoting network weaving), school (i.e., training and educating school implementers), and consumer (i.e., engaging students and parents) levels to improve SLIV implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

There were substantial barriers to the delivery of the SLIV program. Theory-driven implementation strategies developed in this pre-implementation study should be considered to address those identified determinants for successful SLIV implementation.

Refining Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategy surveys using cognitive interviews with frontline providers

BACKGROUND

The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation includes 73 defined implementation strategies clustered into nine content areas. This taxonomy has been used to track implementation strategies over time using surveys. This study aimed to improve the ERIC survey using cognitive interviews with non-implementation scientist clinicians.

METHODS

Starting in 2015, we developed and fielded annual ERIC surveys to evaluate liver care in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). We invited providers who had completed at least three surveys to participate in cognitive interviews (October 2020 to October 2021). Before the interviews, participants reviewed the complete 73-item ERIC survey and marked which strategies were unclear due to wording, conceptual confusion, or overlap with other strategies. They then engaged in semi-structured cognitive interviews to describe the experience of completing the survey and elaborate on which strategies required further clarification.

RESULTS

Twelve VA providers completed surveys followed by cognitive interviews. The "Engage Consumer" and "Support Clinicians" clusters were rated most highly in terms of conceptual and wording clarity. In contrast, the "Financial" cluster had the most wording and conceptual confusion. The "Adapt and Tailor to Context" cluster strategies were considered to have the most redundancy. Providers outlined ways in which the strategies could be clearer in terms of wording (32%), conceptual clarity (51%), and clarifying the distinction between strategies (51%).

CONCLUSIONS

Cognitive interviews with ERIC survey participants allowed us to identify and address issues with strategy wording, combine conceptually indistinct strategies, and disaggregate multi-barreled strategies. Improvements made to the ERIC survey based on these findings will ultimately assist VA and other institutions in designing, evaluating, and replicating quality improvement efforts.

Identification of Implementation Strategies Using the CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool to Mitigate Barriers in a Primary Care Model for Older Veterans

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

As the proportion of the U.S. population over 65 and living with complex chronic conditions grows, understanding how to strengthen the implementation of age-sensitive primary care models for older adults, such as the Veterans Health Administration's Geriatric Patient-Aligned Care Teams (GeriPACT), is critical. However, little is known about which implementation strategies can best help to mitigate barriers to adopting these models. We aimed to identify barriers to GeriPACT implementation and strategies to address these barriers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (CFIR-ERIC) Matching Tool.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a content analysis of qualitative responses obtained from a web-based survey sent to GeriPACT members. Using a matrix approach, we grouped similar responses into key barrier categories. After mapping barriers to CFIR, we used the Tool to identify recommended strategies.

RESULTS

Across 53 Veterans Health Administration hospitals, 32% of team members (n = 197) responded to our open-ended question about barriers to GeriPACT care. Barriers identified include Available Resources, Networks & Communication, Design Quality & Packaging, Knowledge & Beliefs, Leadership Engagement, and Relative Priority. The Tool recommended 12 Level 1 (e.g., conduct educational meetings) and 24 Level 2 ERIC strategies (e.g., facilitation). Several strategies (e.g., conduct local consensus discussions) cut across multiple barriers.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Strategies identified by the Tool can inform on-going development of the GeriPACT model's effective implementation and sustainment. Incorporating cross-cutting implementation strategies that mitigate multiple barriers at once may further support these next steps.

Creating an Implementation Enhancement Plan for a Digital Patient Fall Prevention Platform Using the CFIR-ERIC Approach: A Qualitative Study

(1) Background: Inpatient falls are a major cause of hospital-acquired complications (HAC) and inpatient harm. Interventions to prevent falls exist, but it is unclear which are most effective and what implementation strategies best support their use. This study uses existing implementation theory to develop an implementation enhancement plan to improve the uptake of a digital fall prevention workflow. (2) Methods: A qualitative approach using focus groups/interview included 12 participants across four inpatient wards, from a newly built, 300-bed rural referral hospital. Interviews were coded to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and then converted to barrier and enabler statements using consensus agreement. Barriers and enablers were mapped to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) tool to develop an implementation enhancement plan. (3) Results: The most prevalent CFIR enablers included: relative advantage (n = 12), access to knowledge and information (n = 11), leadership engagement (n = 9), patient needs and resources (n = 8), cosmopolitanism (n = 5), knowledge and beliefs about the intervention (n = 5), self-efficacy (n = 5) and formally appointed internal implementation leaders (n = 5). Commonly mentioned CFIR barriers included: access to knowledge and information (n = 11), available resources (n = 8), compatibility (n = 8), patient needs and resources (n = 8), design quality and packaging (n = 10), adaptability (n = 7) and executing (n = 7). After mapping the CFIR enablers and barriers to the ERIC tool, six clusters of interventions were revealed: train and educate stakeholders, utilize financial strategies, adapt and tailor to context, engage consumers, use evaluative and iterative strategies and develop stakeholder interrelations. (4) Conclusions: The enablers and barriers identified are similar to those described in the literature. Given there is close agreement between the ERIC consensus framework recommendations and the evidence, this approach will likely assist in enhancing the implementation of Rauland's Concentric Care fall prevention platform and other similar workflow technologies that have the potential to disrupt team and organisational routines. The results of this study will provide a blueprint to enhance implementation that will be tested for effectiveness at a later stage.

Differences in stakeholder-reported barriers and implementation strategies between counties with high, middle, and low HPV vaccine initiation rates: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

A greater understanding of the county-level differences in human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates could aid targeting of interventions to reduce HPV-related cancer disparities.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study to compare the stakeholder-reported barriers and efforts to increase HPV vaccination rates between counties within the highest, middle, and lowest HPV vaccine initiation (receipt of the first dose) rates among 22 northern Florida counties. Between August 2018 and April 2019, we recruited stakeholders (n = 68) through purposeful and snowball sampling to identify potential participants who were most knowledgeable about the HPV vaccination activities within their county and would represent a variety of viewpoints to create a diverse picture of each county, and completed semi-structured interviews. County-level HPV vaccine initiation rates for 2018 were estimated from the Florida Department of Health's immunization registry and population counts. Implementation strategies were categorized by level of importance and feasibility using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy. We compared the barriers and implementation strategies for HPV vaccination between tercile groups of counties by HPV vaccine initiation rates: highest (18 stakeholders), middle (27 stakeholders), and lowest (23 stakeholders).

RESULTS

The majority of the 68 stakeholders were female (89.7%), non-Hispanic white (73.5%), and represented a variety of clinical and non-clinical occupations. The mentioned barriers represented five themes: healthcare access, clinician practices, community partnerships, targeted populations, and cultural barriers. Within themes, differences emerged between county terciles. Within healthcare access, the highest rate county stakeholders focused on transportation, lowest rate county stakeholders focused on lack of clinicians, and middle county stakeholders mentioned both. The number of ERIC quadrant I strategies, higher feasibility, and importance described decreased with the tercile for HPV vaccination: highest = 6, middle = 5, and lowest =3 strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

The differing barriers and strategies between the highest, middle, and lowest vaccination rate counties suggest that a tailored and targeted effort within the lowest and middle counties to adopt strategies of the highest rate counties may reduce disparities.

German translation and pre-testing of Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC)

Background

Implementation frameworks may support local implementation strategies with a sound theoretical foundation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) facilitates identification of contextual barriers and facilitators, and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) allows identifying adequate implementation strategies. Both instruments are already used in German-speaking countries; however, no standardised and validated translation is available thus far. The aim of this study was to translate the CFIR and ERIC framework into German, in order to increase the use of these frameworks and the adherence to evidence-based implementation efforts in German-speaking countries.

Methods

The translation of the original versions of the CFIR and ERIC framework was guided by the World Health Organisation’s recommendations for the process of translating and adapting both conceptual frameworks. Accordingly, a four-step process was employed: first, forward translation from English into German was conducted by a research team of German native speakers with fluent knowledge of the English language. Second, a bilingual expert panel comprising one researcher with German as his mother tongue and expert command of the English language and one English language expert and university teacher reviewed the translation and discussed inconsistencies with the initial translators. Third, back-translation into English was conducted by an English native speaking researcher. The final version was pre-tested with 12 German researchers and clinicians who were involved in implementation projects using cognitive interviews.

Results

The translation and review process revealed some inconsistencies between the original version and the German translations. All issues could be solved by discussion. Central aspects of the items were confirmed in 60 to 70% of the items, and modifications were proposed in 30% of the items. Finally, we revised one CFIR-item heading after pre-testing. The final version was given consent by all involved parties.

Conclusions

Now, two validated and tested implementation frameworks to guide implementation efforts are available in the German language and can be used to increase the application of agreed-on implementation strategies into practice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-021-00222-w.

Strategies for facilitating the delivery of cluster randomized trials in hospitals: A study informed by the CFIR-ERIC matching tool

BACKGROUND

Recruitment and engagement of clusters in a cluster randomized controlled trial can sometimes prove challenging. Identification of successful or unsuccessful strategies may be beneficial in guiding future researchers in conducting their cluster randomized controlled trial. This study aimed to identify strategies that could be used to facilitate the delivery of cluster randomized controlled trials in hospitals.

METHODS

The study employed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change matching tool. The barriers and enablers to cluster randomized controlled trial conduct identified in our previously conducted studies served as a means of determinant identification for the conduct of cluster randomized controlled trials. These determinants were mapped to Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research constructs and then matched to Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change compilation strategies using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change matching tool.

RESULTS

The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change strategies matched to at least one determinant Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research construct were as follows: (1) 'Identify and prepare champions', (2) 'Conduct local needs assessment', (3) 'Conduct educational meetings', (4) 'Inform local opinion leaders', (5) 'Build a coalition', (6) 'Promote adaptability', (7) 'Develop a formal implementation blueprint', (8) 'Involve patients/consumers and family members', (9) 'Obtain and use patients/consumers and family feedback', (10) 'Develop educational materials', (11) 'Promote network weaving', (12) 'Distribute educational materials', (13) 'Access new funding' and (14) 'Develop academic partnerships'.

CONCLUSION

This study was intended as a step in the research agenda aimed at facilitating cluster randomized controlled trial delivery in hospitals and can act as a resource for future researchers when planning their cluster randomized controlled trial, with the expectation that the strategies identified here will be tailored to each context.

The CFIR Card Game: a new approach for working with implementation teams to identify challenges and strategies

BACKGROUND

The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the ERIC compilation of implementation strategies are key resources for identifying implementation barriers and strategies. However, their respective density and complexity make their application to implementation planning outside of academia challenging. We developed the CFIR Card Game as a way of working with multi-stakeholder implementation teams that were implementing mental health recovery into their services, to identify barriers and strategies to overcome them. The aim of this descriptive evaluation is to describe how the game was prepared, played, used and received by teams and researchers and their perception of the clarity of the CFIR constructs.

METHODS

We used the new CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool v.1 to design the game. We produced a deck of cards with each of the CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool barrier narratives representing all 39 CFIR constructs. Teams played the game at the pre-implementation stage at a time when they were actively engaged in a planning process for implementing their selected recovery-oriented innovation. The teams placed each card in either the YES or NO column of the board in response to whether they anticipated experiencing this barrier in their setting. Teams were also asked about the clarity of the barrier narratives and were provided with plain language versions if unclear. Researchers completed a reflection form following the game, and participants completed an open-added questionnaire that included questions specific to the CFIR Card Game. We applied a descriptive coding approach to analysis.

RESULTS

Four descriptive themes emerged from this analysis: (1) the CFIR Card Game as a useful and engaging process, (2) difficulties understanding CFIR construct barrier narratives, (3) strengths of the game's design and structure and room for improvement and (4) mediating factors: facilitator preparation and multi-stakeholder dynamics. Quantitative findings regarding the clarity of the barrier narratives were integrated with qualitative data under theme 2. Only seven of the 39 original barrier narratives were judged to be clear by all teams.

CONCLUSIONS

The CFIR Card Game can be used to enhance implementation planning. Plain language versions of CFIR construct barrier narratives are needed. Our plain language versions require further testing and refining.

Preoperative Anemia and Iron Deficiency Screening, Evaluation and Management: Barrier Identification and Implementation Strategy Mapping

Introduction and aims

Patients undergoing major surgery risk significant blood loss and transfusion, which increases substantially if they have pre-existing anemia. Preoperative Anemia and Iron Deficiency Screening, Evaluation and Management Pathways (PAIDSEM-P) outline recommended blood tests and treatment to optimize patients before surgery. Documented success using PAIDSEM-P to reduce transfusions and improve patient outcomes exists, but the reporting quality of such studies is suboptimal. It remains unclear what implementation strategies best support the implementation of PAIDSEM-P.

Method

Maximum variation, purposive sampling was used to recruit a total of 15 participants, including a range of health professionals and patients for semi-structured interviews. Data analysis utilized a deductive approach informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) for barrier identification and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) for reporting recommended implementation strategies. A modified version of the Action, Actor, Context, Target and Time (AACTT) framework assisted with conceptualisation and targeted strategy selection.

Results

The analysis revealed five barriers: access to knowledge and information, patient needs and resources, knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, available resources, and networks and communications, which had strong ERIC recommendations, including conduct educational meetings, develop educational materials, distribute educational materials, obtain and use patients/consumers family feedback, involve patients/consumers/family members, conduct a local needs assessment, access new funding, promote network weaving, and organize clinician implementation team meetings.

Conclusions

Mapping the barriers and strategies using the ERIC framework on the basis of individual actor categories proved to be useful in identifying a pragmatic number of implementation strategies that may help in supporting the utilisation of the PAIDSEM-P and other evidence-based healthcare implementation problems more broadly.

Overcoming barriers to evidence-based patient blood management: a restricted review

Background

Blood transfusions are associated with a range of adverse patient outcomes, including coagulopathy, immunomodulation and haemolysis, which increase the risk of morbidity and mortality. Consideration of these risks and potential benefits are necessary when deciding to transfuse. Patient blood management (PBM) guidelines exist to assist in clinical decision-making, but they are underutilised. Exploration of barriers to the implementation and utilisation of the PBM guidelines is required. This study aimed to identify common barriers and implementation strategies used to implement PBM guidelines, with a comparison against current expert opinion.

Methods

A restricted review approach was used to identify the barriers to PBM guideline implementation as reported by health professionals and to review which implementation strategies have been used. Searches were undertaken in MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane library. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to code barriers. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) tool was used to code implementation strategies, and subsequently, develop recommendations based on expert opinion.

Results

We identified 14 studies suitable for inclusion. There was a cluster of barriers commonly reported: access to knowledge and information (n = 7), knowledge and beliefs about the intervention ( = 7) and tension for change (n = 6). Implementation strategies used varied widely (n = 25). Only one study reported the use of an implementation theory, model or framework. Most studies (n = 11) had at least 50% agreement with the ERIC recommendations.

Conclusions

There are common barriers experienced by health professionals when trying to implement PBM guidelines. There is currently no conclusive evidence to suggest which implementation strategies are most effective. Further research using validated implementation approaches and improved reporting is required.

Choosing implementation strategies to address contextual barriers: diversity in recommendations and future directions

BACKGROUND

A fundamental challenge of implementation is identifying contextual determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) and determining which implementation strategies will address them. Numerous conceptual frameworks (e.g., the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; CFIR) have been developed to guide the identification of contextual determinants, and compilations of implementation strategies (e.g., the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change compilation; ERIC) have been developed which can support selection and reporting of implementation strategies. The aim of this study was to identify which ERIC implementation strategies would best address specific CFIR-based contextual barriers.

METHODS

Implementation researchers and practitioners were recruited to participate in an online series of tasks involving matching specific ERIC implementation strategies to specific implementation barriers. Participants were presented with brief descriptions of barriers based on CFIR construct definitions. They were asked to rank up to seven implementation strategies that would best address each barrier. Barriers were presented in a random order, and participants had the option to respond to the barrier or skip to another barrier. Participants were also asked about considerations that most influenced their choices.

RESULTS

Four hundred thirty-five invitations were emailed and 169 (39%) individuals participated. Respondents had considerable heterogeneity in opinions regarding which ERIC strategies best addressed each CFIR barrier. Across the 39 CFIR barriers, an average of 47 different ERIC strategies (SD = 4.8, range 35 to 55) was endorsed at least once for each, as being one of seven strategies that would best address the barrier. A tool was developed that allows users to specify high-priority CFIR-based barriers and receive a prioritized list of strategies based on endorsements provided by participants.

CONCLUSIONS

The wide heterogeneity of endorsements obtained in this study's task suggests that there are relatively few consistent relationships between CFIR-based barriers and ERIC implementation strategies. Despite this heterogeneity, a tool aggregating endorsements across multiple barriers can support taking a structured approach to consider a broad range of strategies given those barriers. This study's results point to the need for a more detailed evaluation of the underlying determinants of barriers and how these determinants are addressed by strategies as part of the implementation planning process.

Choosing implementation strategies to address contextual barriers: diversity in recommendations and future directions

BACKGROUND

A fundamental challenge of implementation is identifying contextual determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) and determining which implementation strategies will address them. Numerous conceptual frameworks (e.g., the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; CFIR) have been developed to guide the identification of contextual determinants, and compilations of implementation strategies (e.g., the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change compilation; ERIC) have been developed which can support selection and reporting of implementation strategies. The aim of this study was to identify which ERIC implementation strategies would best address specific CFIR-based contextual barriers.

METHODS

Implementation researchers and practitioners were recruited to participate in an online series of tasks involving matching specific ERIC implementation strategies to specific implementation barriers. Participants were presented with brief descriptions of barriers based on CFIR construct definitions. They were asked to rank up to seven implementation strategies that would best address each barrier. Barriers were presented in a random order, and participants had the option to respond to the barrier or skip to another barrier. Participants were also asked about considerations that most influenced their choices.

RESULTS

Four hundred thirty-five invitations were emailed and 169 (39%) individuals participated. Respondents had considerable heterogeneity in opinions regarding which ERIC strategies best addressed each CFIR barrier. Across the 39 CFIR barriers, an average of 47 different ERIC strategies (SD = 4.8, range 35 to 55) was endorsed at least once for each, as being one of seven strategies that would best address the barrier. A tool was developed that allows users to specify high-priority CFIR-based barriers and receive a prioritized list of strategies based on endorsements provided by participants.

CONCLUSIONS

The wide heterogeneity of endorsements obtained in this study's task suggests that there are relatively few consistent relationships between CFIR-based barriers and ERIC implementation strategies. Despite this heterogeneity, a tool aggregating endorsements across multiple barriers can support taking a structured approach to consider a broad range of strategies given those barriers. This study's results point to the need for a more detailed evaluation of the underlying determinants of barriers and how these determinants are addressed by strategies as part of the implementation planning process.