Building a sharable literature collection to advance the science and practice of implementation facilitation

Background

Implementation science seeks to produce generalizable knowledge on strategies that promote the adoption and sustained use of evidence-based innovations. Literature reviews on specific implementation strategies can help us understand how they are conceptualized and applied, synthesize findings, and identify knowledge gaps. Although rigorous literature reviews can advance scientific knowledge and facilitate theory development, they are time-consuming and costly to produce. Improving the efficiency of literature review processes and reducing redundancy of effort is especially important for this rapidly developing field. We sought to amass relevant literature on one increasingly used evidence-based strategy, implementation facilitation (IF), as a publicly available resource.

Methods

We conducted a rigorous systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science citation databases for peer-reviewed, English-language articles with "facilitation" and a combination of other terms published from January 1996 to December 2021. We searched bibliographies of articles published from 1996 to 2015 and identified articles during the full text review that reported on the same study. Two authors screened 3,168 abstracts. After establishing inter-rater reliability, they individually conducted full-text review of 786 relevant articles. A multidisciplinary team of investigators provided recommendations for preparing and disseminating the literature collection.

Findings

The literature collection is comprised of 510 articles. It includes 277 empirical studies of IF and 77 other articles, including conceptual/theoretical articles, literature reviews, debate papers and descriptions of large-scale clinical initiatives. Over half of the articles were published between 2017 and 2021. The collection is publicly available as an Excel file and as an xml file that can be imported into reference management software.

Conclusion

We created a publicly accessible collection of literature about the application of IF to implement evidence-based innovations in healthcare. The comprehensiveness of this collection has the potential to maximize efficiency and minimize redundancy in scientific inquiry about this strategy. Scientists and practitioners can use the collection to more rapidly identify developments in the application of IF and to investigate a wide range of compelling questions on its use within and across different healthcare disciplines/settings, countries, and payer systems. We offer several examples of how this collection has already been used.

What AHRQ Learned While Working to Transform Primary Care

Building on previous efforts to transform primary care, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) launched EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in 2015. This 3-year initiative provided external quality improvement support to small and medium-size primary care practices to implement evidence-based cardiovascular care. Despite challenges, results from an independent national evaluation demonstrated that the EvidenceNOW model successfully boosted the capacity of primary care practices to improve quality of care, while helping to advance heart health. Reflecting on AHRQ's own learnings as the funder of this work, 3 key lessons emerged: (1) there will always be surprises that will require flexibility and real-time adaptation; (2) primary care transformation is about more than technology; and (3) it takes time and experience to improve care delivery and health outcomes. EvidenceNOW taught us that lasting practice transformation efforts need to be responsive to anticipated and unanticipated changes, relationship-oriented, and not tied to a specific disease or initiative. We believe these lessons argue for a national primary care extension service that provides ongoing support for practice transformation.

Application of the FRAME-IS to a Multifaceted Implementation Strategy

Background

Research demonstrates the importance of documenting adaptations to implementation strategies that support integration of evidence-based interventions into practice. While studies have utilized the FRAME-IS [Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications for Implementation Strategies] to collect structured adaptation data, they are limited by a focus on discrete implementation strategies (e.g., training), which do not reflect the complexity of multifaceted strategies like practice facilitation (PF). In this paper, we apply the FRAME-IS to our trial evaluating the effectiveness of PF on implementation fidelity of an evidence-based technology-facilitated team care model for improved hypertension control within a federally qualified health center (FQHC).

Methods

Three data sources are used to document adaptations: (1) implementation committee meeting minutes, (2) narrative reports completed by practice facilitators, and (3) structured notes captured on root cause analysis and Plan-Do-Study-Act worksheets. Text was extracted from the data sources according to the FRAME-IS modules and inputted into a master matrix for content analysis by two authors; a third author conducted member checking and code validation.

Results

We modified the FRAME-IS to include part 2 of module 2 (what is modified) to add greater detail of the modified strategy, and a numbering system to track adaptations across the modules. This resulted in identification of 27 adaptations, of which 88.9% focused on supporting practices in identifying eligible patients and referring them to the intervention. About half (52.9%) of the adaptations were made to modify the context of the PF strategy to include a group-based format, add community health workers to the strategy, and to shift the implementation target to nurses. The adaptations were often widespread (83.9%), affecting all practices within the FQHC. While most adaptations were reactive (84.6%), they resulted from a systematic process of reviewing data captured by multiple sources. All adaptations included the FQHC in the decision-making process.

Conclusion

With modifications, we demonstrate the ability to document our adaptation data across the FRAME-IS modules, attesting to its applicability and value for a range of implementation strategies. Based on our experiences, we recommend refinement of tracking systems to support more nimble and practical documentation of iterative, ongoing, and multifaceted adaptations.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov NCT03713515, Registration date: October 19, 2018.

Improving Guideline-Recommended Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC): Implementing a Patient Navigation and Practice Facilitation Intervention to Promote Health Equity

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective in the prevention and early detection of cancer. Implementing evidence-based screening guidelines remains a challenge, especially in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), where current rates (43%) are lower than national goals (80%), and even lower in populations with limited English proficiency (LEP) who experience increased barriers to care related to systemic inequities.

METHODS

This quality improvement (QI) initiative began in 2016, focused on utilizing patient navigation and practice facilitation to addressing systemic inequities and barriers to care to increase CRC screening rates at an urban FQHC, with two clinical locations (the intervention and control sites) serving a diverse population through culturally tailored education and navigation.

RESULTS

Between August 2016 and December 2018, CRC screening rates increased significantly from 31% to 59% at the intervention site (p < 0.001), with the most notable change in patients with LEP. Since 2018 through December 2022, navigation and practice facilitation expanded to all clinics, and the overall CRC screening rates continued to increase from 43% to 50%, demonstrating the effectiveness of patient navigation to address systemic inequities.

CONCLUSIONS

This multilevel intervention addressed structural inequities and barriers to care by implementing evidence-based guidelines into practice, and combining patient navigation and practice facilitation to successfully increase the CRC screening rates at this FQHC.

Practice Facilitation to Support Family Physicians in Encouraging COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: A Multimethod Process Evaluation

PURPOSE

We offered a practice facilitation intervention to family physicians in Ontario, Canada, known to have large numbers of patients not yet vaccinated against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

We conducted a multimethod process evaluation embedded within a randomized controlled trial (clinical trial #NCT05099497). We collected descriptive statistics regarding engagement and qualitative interview data from family physicians and practice facilitators, as well as data from facilitator field notes. We analyzed and triangulated the data using thematic analysis and mapped barriers to and enablers for implementation to structural, organizational, physician, and patient factors.

RESULTS

Of the 300 approached, 90 family physicians (30%) accepted facilitation. Of these, 57% received technical support to identify unvaccinated patients, 29% used trained medical student volunteers to contact patients on their behalf, and 30% used automated calling to reach patients. Key factors affecting engagement with the intervention were staff shortages owing to COVID-19 (structural), clinic characteristics such as technical issues and gatekeeping by staff, which prevented facilitators from talking with physicians (organizational), burnout (physician), and specialized populations that required targeted resources (patient). The facilitator's ability to address technical issues and connect family physicians with medical students helped with engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies to help underresourced family physicians serving high-needs populations for issues of public health importance, such as vaccine promotion, must acknowledge the scarcity of physicians' time and provide new resources. To successfully engage family physicians, practice facilitators should seek to build trust and relationships over time, including with front-office staff.

Effective Facilitator Strategies for Supporting Primary Care Practice Change: A Mixed Methods Study

PURPOSE

Practice facilitation is an evidence-informed implementation strategy to support quality improvement (QI) and aid practices in aligning with best evidence. Few studies, particularly of this size and scope, identify strategies that contribute to facilitator effectiveness.

METHODS

We conducted a sequential mixed methods study, analyzing data from EvidenceNOW, a large-scale QI initiative. Seven regional cooperatives employed 162 facilitators to work with 1,630 small or medium-sized primary care practices. Main analyses were based on facilitators who worked with at least 4 practices. Facilitators were defined as more effective if at least 75% of their practices improved on at least 1 outcome measure-aspirin use, blood pressure control, smoking cessation counseling (ABS), or practice change capacity, measured using Change Process Capability Questionnaire-from baseline to follow-up. Facilitators were defined as less effective if less than 50% of their practices improved on these outcomes. Using an immersion crystallization and comparative approach, we analyzed observational and interview data to identify strategies associated with more effective facilitators.

RESULTS

Practices working with more effective facilitators had a 3.6% greater change in the mean percentage of patients meeting the composite ABS measure compared with practices working with less effective facilitators (P <.001). More effective facilitators cultivated motivation by tailoring QI work and addressing resistance, guided practices to think critically, and provided accountability to support change, using these strategies in combination. They were able to describe their work in detail. In contrast, less effective facilitators seldom used these strategies and described their work in general terms. Facilitator background, experience, and work on documentation did not differentiate between more and less effective facilitators.

CONCLUSIONS

Facilitation strategies that differentiate more and less effective facilitators have implications for enhancing facilitator development and training, and can assist all facilitators to more effectively support practice changes.

Identifying Contextual Factors and Strategies for Practice Facilitation in Primary Care Quality Improvement Using an Informatics-Driven Model: Framework Development and Mixed Methods Case Study

BACKGROUND

The past decade has seen increasing opportunities and efforts to integrate quality improvement into health care. Practice facilitation is a proven strategy to support redesign and improvement in primary care practices that focuses on building organizational capacity for continuous improvement. Practice leadership, staff, and practice facilitators all play important roles in supporting quality improvement in primary care. However, little is known about their perspectives on the context, enablers, barriers, and strategies that impact quality improvement initiatives.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop a framework to enable assessment of contextual factors, challenges, and strategies that impact practice facilitation, clinical measure performance, and the implementation of quality improvement interventions. We also illustrated the application of the framework using a real-world case study.

METHODS

We developed the TITO (task, individual, technology, and organization) framework by conducting participatory stakeholder workshops and incorporating their perspectives to identify enablers and barriers to quality improvement and practice facilitation. We conducted a case study using a mixed methods approach to demonstrate the use of the framework and describe practice facilitation and factors that impact quality improvement in a primary care practice that participated in the Healthy Hearts in the Heartland study.

RESULTS

The proposed framework was used to organize and analyze different stakeholders' perspectives and key factors based on framework domains. The case study showed that practice leaders, staff, and practice facilitators all influenced the success of the quality improvement program. However, these participants faced different challenges and used different strategies. The framework showed that barriers stemmed from patients' social determinants of health, a lack of staff and time, and unsystematic facilitation resources, while enablers included practice culture, staff buy-in, implementation of effective practice facilitation strategies, practice capacity for change, and shared complementary resources from similar, ongoing programs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our framework provided a useful and generalizable structure to guide and support assessment of future practice facilitation projects, quality improvement initiatives, and health care intervention implementation studies. The practice leader, staff, and practice facilitator all saw value in the quality improvement program and practice facilitation. Practice facilitators are key liaisons to help the quality improvement program; they help all stakeholders work toward a shared target and leverage tailored strategies. Taking advantage of resources from competing, yet complementary, programs as additional support may accelerate the effective achievement of quality improvement goals. Practice facilitation-supported quality improvement programs may be opportunities to assist primary care practices in achieving improved quality of care through focused and targeted efforts. The case study demonstrated how our framework can support a better understanding of contextual factors for practice facilitation, which could enable well-prepared and more successful quality improvement programs for primary care practices. Combining implementation science and informatics thinking, our TITO framework may facilitate interdisciplinary research in both fields.

COVID-19-related adaptations to the implementation and evaluation of a clinic-based intervention designed to improve opioid safety

The United States faces an opioid crisis with an unprecedented and increasing death rate from opioid overdose. Successfully reducing the rates of opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose will require the engagement of frontline clinicians to prescribe opioids more safely and to build their capacity to treat patients with OUD using evidence-based approaches. The COVID-19 pandemic has created significant challenges for patients, clinicians and health systems and has been associated with increasing risks of overdoses and deaths. Herein, we review a multidisciplinary project designed to implement and evaluate clinic-based interventions in Oregon, USA, to improve pain management, opioid prescribing and treatment of OUD. The intervention, called Improving PaIn aNd OPiOId MaNagemenT in Primary Care (PINPOINT), combines practice facilitation, academic detailing and education through the Oregon ECHO Network. Implementation of PINPOINT has occurred across the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network and has involved 49 clinic sites to date. To evaluate the impact of the intervention, the research team created the Provider Results of Opioid Management and Prescribing Training (PROMPT), a dataset that links information from the state prescription drug monitoring program, all-payer claims database, emergency medical services, vital records and substance use disorder treatment system. The PROMPT dataset will allow evaluation of the impact of the intervention at both the clinician and clinic levels. Due to the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic, elements of both implementation and evaluation required significant adaptations to continue to meet the original project goals.

Improving Quality Improvement Capacity and Clinical Performance in Small Primary Care Practices

PURPOSE

We undertook a study to assess whether implementing 7 evidence-based strategies to build improvement capacity within smaller primary care practices was associated with changes in performance on clinical quality measures (CQMs) for cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

A total of 209 practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho participated in a pragmatic clinical trial that focused on building quality improvement capacity as measured by a validated questionnaire, the 12-point Quality Improvement Capacity Assessment (QICA). Clinics reported performance on 3 cardiovascular CQMs-appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure (BP) control (<140/90 mm Hg), and smoking screening/cessation counseling-at baseline (2015) and follow-up (2017). Regression analyses with change in CQM as the dependent variable allowed for clustering by practice facilitator and adjusted for baseline CQM performance.

RESULTS

Practices improved QICA scores by 1.44 points (95% CI, 1.20-1.68; P <.001) from an average baseline of 6.45. All 3 CQMs also improved: aspirin use by 3.98% (average baseline = 66.8%; 95% CI for change, 1.17%-6.79%; P = .006); BP control by 3.36% (average baseline = 61.5%; 95% CI for change, 1.44%-5.27%; P = .001); and tobacco screening/cessation counseling by 7.49% (average baseline = 73.8%; 95% CI for change, 4.21%-10.77%; P <.001). Each 1-point increase in QICA score was associated with a 1.25% (95% CI, 0.41%-2.09%, P = .003) improvement in BP control; the estimated likelihood of reaching a 70% BP control performance goal was 1.24 times higher (95% CI, 1.09-1.40; P <.001) for each 1-point increase in QICA.

CONCLUSION

Improvements in clinic-level performance on BP control may be attributed to implementation of 7 evidence-based strategies to build quality improvement capacity. These strategies were feasible to implement in small practices over 15 months.

Improving Cancer Screening Rates in Primary Care via Practice Facilitation and Academic Detailing: A Multi-PBRN Quality Improvement Project

PURPOSE

In the United States, cancer screening rates are often below national targets. This project implemented practice facilitation and academic detailing aimed at increasing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening rates in safety-net primary care practices.

METHODS

Three practice-based research networks across western and central New York State partnered to provide quality improvement strategies on breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. Pre/postintervention screening rates for all participating practices were collected annually, as were means across all practices over 7 years. Simple ordinary least squares linear regression was used to calculate the trend for each cancer type and test for statistical significance (ie, P≤0.05), using the ordinal time point as a fixed effect.

RESULTS

An overall increase in mean screening rates was seen over the duration of this project for colorectal (24.6% preintervention to 48.0% in year 7 of intervention; P<0.001) and breast cancer (37.0% preintervention to 48.6% in year 7; P=0.460). Mean cervical cancer screening rates decreased (35.5% preintervention to 31.4% in year 7; P=0.209). Success in increasing screening rates varied across regions of New York State.

CONCLUSIONS

Practice facilitation and academic detailing were successful in significantly increasing, on average, colorectal cancer screening rate. Cervical cancer screening showed an overall decrease, likely due to difficulties for primary care practices in tracking and implementation, as many patients seek this service at outside gynecology facilities. Regional differences, guideline changes, and practice reorganization each may have played a part in observed trends. A standardization of queries being used to pull screening rates is an important step in increasing the reliability of these data.

The Importance of Practice Facilitation in Primary Care When Pandemic Takes Hold: Relationships of Resilience

The COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented in recent history as radically and forcefully changing healthcare delivery. Practice facilitators, who often use tools of improvement science, have long played a critical role in supporting routine primary care practice transformation when healthcare system and policy changes occur. However, current events have taken many healthcare systems to the brink of collapse. Our practice facilitation team, which has a long history of sustained primary care partnerships in rural under-resourced settings, is finding creative solutions to carry forward work in research and quality improvement, and the tools of improvement science are well-suited to address rapidly changing demands of primary care during such a crisis. We reflect here on practice facilitation through the pandemic—the value of applied improvement science, and the critical necessity of strong relationships, flexibility, and creativity to support ongoing primary care partnerships.

Implementation of Community-Based Resource Referrals for Cardiovascular Disease Self-Management

PURPOSE

Describe primary care practices' implementation of CommunityRx-H3, a community resource referral intervention that utilized practice facilitators to support cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention quality improvement.

METHODS

Qualitative focus groups were conducted with practice facilitators to elicit perceptions of practices' experiences with CommunityRx-H3, practice-level factors affecting, and practice facilitator strategies to promote implementation. Qualitative data were analyzed using directed content analysis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was applied deductively to organize and interpret findings.

RESULTS

Fourteen of all 19 practice facilitators participated. Practice facilitators perceived that staff attitudes about connecting patients to community resources for CVD were largely positive. Practices were already using a range of non-systematic strategies to refer to community resources. Practice-level factors that facilitated CommunityRx-H3 implementation included clinician "champions," engaged practice managers, and a practice culture that valued community resources. Implementation barriers included a practice's unwillingness to integrate the intervention into existing workflows, limited staff capacity to complete the resource inventory, and unavailability or cost of materials needed to print the resource referral list ("HealtheRx-H3"). Practice facilitator strategies to promote implementation included supporting ongoing customization of the HealtheRx-H3 and material support. Practice facilitators felt implementation would be improved by integration of CommunityRx-H3 with electronic medical record workflows and alternative methods for engaging practices in the implementation process.

CONCLUSIONS

Practice facilitators are increasingly being utilized by primary care practices to support quality improvement interventions and, as shown here, can also play an important role in implementation science. This study yields insights to improve implementation of community resource referral solutions to support primary care CVD prevention efforts.

Exemplary Practices in Cardiovascular Care: Results on Clinical Quality Measures from the EvidenceNOW Southwest Cooperative

BACKGROUND

Identifying characteristics of primary care practices that perform well on cardiovascular clinical quality measures (CQMs) may point to important practice improvement strategies.

OBJECTIVE

To identify practice characteristics associated with high performance on four cardiovascular disease CQMs.

DESIGN

Longitudinal cohort study among 211 primary care practices in Colorado and New Mexico. Quarterly CQM reports were obtained from 178 (84.4%) practices. There was 100% response rate for baseline practice characteristics and implementation tracking surveys. Follow-up implementation tracking surveys were completed for 80.6% of practices.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients, staff, and clinicians in family medicine, general internal medicine, and mixed-specialty practices.

INTERVENTION

Practices received 9 months of practice facilitation and health information technology support, plus biannual collaborative learning sessions.

MAIN MEASURES

This study identified practice characteristics associated with overall highest performance using area under the curve (AUC) analysis on aspirin therapy, blood pressure management, and smoking cessation CQMs.

RESULTS

Among 178 practices, 39 were exemplars. Exemplars were more likely to be a Federally Qualified Health Center (69.2% vs 35.3%, p = 0.0006), have an underserved designation (69.2% vs 45.3%, p = 0.0083), and have higher percentage of patients with Medicaid (p < 0.0001). Exemplars reported greater use of cardiovascular disease registries (61.5% vs 29.5%,), standing orders (38.5 vs 22.3%) or electronic health record prompts (84.6% vs 49.6%) (all p < 0.05), were more likely to have medical home recognition (74.4% vs 43.2%, p = 0.0006), and reported greater implementation of building blocks of high-performing primary care: regular quality improvement team meetings (3.0 vs 2.2), patient experience survey (3.1 vs 2.2), and resources for patients to manage their health (3.0 vs 2.3). High improvers (n = 45) showed greater improvement implementing team-based care (32.8 vs 11.7, p = 0.0004) and population management (37.4 vs 20.5, p = 0.0057).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple strategies-registries, prompts and protocols, patient self-management support, and patient-team partnership activities-were associated with delivering high-quality cardiovascular care over time, measured by CQMs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02515578.

A controlled trial of dissemination and implementation of a cardiovascular risk reduction strategy in small primary care practices

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of dissemination and implementation of an intervention consisting of practice facilitation and a risk-stratified, population management dashboard on cardiovascular risk reduction for patients at high risk in small, primary care practices.

STUDY SETTING

A total of 219 small primary care practices (≤10 clinicians per site) across North Carolina with primary data collection from electronic health records (EHRs) from the fourth quarter of 2015 through the second quarter of 2018.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a stepped-wedge, stratified, cluster randomized trial of a one-year intervention consisting of practice facilitation utilizing quality improvement techniques coupled with a cardiovascular dashboard that included lists of risk-stratified adults, aged 40-79 years and their unmet treatment opportunities. The primary outcome was change in 10-Year ASCVD Risk score among all patients with a baseline score ≥10 percent from baseline to 3 months postintervention.

DATA COLLECTION/ EXTRACTION METHODS

Data extracts were securely transferred from practices on a nightly basis from their EHR to the research team registry.

PRINCIPLE FINDINGS

ASCVD risk scores were assessed on 437 556 patients and 146 826 had a calculated 10-year risk ≥10 percent. The mean baseline risk was 23.4 percent (SD ± 12.6 percent). Postintervention, the absolute risk reduction was 6.3 percent (95% CI 6.3, 6.4). Models considering calendar time and stepped-wedge controls revealed most of the improvement (4.0 of 6.3 percent) was attributable to the intervention and not secular trends. In multivariate analysis, male gender, age >65 years, low-income (<$40 000), and Black race (P < .001 for all variables) were each associated with greater risk reductions.

CONCLUSION

A risk-stratified, population management dashboard combined with practice facilitation led to substantial reductions of 10-year ASCVD risk for patients at high risk. Similar approaches could lead to effective dissemination and implementation of other new evidence, especially in rural and other under-resourced practices. Registration: ClinicalTrials.Gov 15-0479.

Advancing Cancer Prevention Practice Facilitation Work in Rural Primary Care During COVID-19

COVID-19 and the response to slow the virus spread in West Virginia (WV), including a statewide stay-at-home order, presented challenges to rural primary care clinics on the frontlines. These challenges affected critical quality improvement work, including cancer screening services. In this commentary, the authors present the results of a survey of WV primary care practices that highlight potential long-term implications and identifies opportunities for practice facilitators to partner with rural primary care clinics to address them.

Advancing Integrated Care through Practice Coaching

Introduction:

Practice coaches are skilled consultants who work in health care service delivery systems to make changes designed to improve patient outcomes, yet research is limited regarding their use to support integrated health care. This article describes the use of practice coaches in a large-scale effort to implement integrated care in the United States for patients with complex care needs.

Theory and methods:

This immersive, qualitative project involved five implementation team members; eight practice coaches; and 77 staff members from 12 health care organizations. Semistructured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic and content analyses were applied in multiple stages to understand the use of practice coaches.

Results:

Qualitative themes about the use of practice coaching in this initiative were: (a) development of “a very rich coaching model”; (b) moving from an organic to standardized coaching approach; and (c) coaches representing the “face of the initiative.”

Discussion:

A rich coaching model that includes an interdisciplinary coaching team can support integrated care transformation but challenges including finding highly qualified coaches and sustaining and disseminating the coaching model exist. Standardization was seen as a way to address such challenges.

Conclusion:

Practice coaches can provide individualized, hands-on guidance to support successful implementation of integrated care.

How Practice Facilitation Strategies Differ by Practice Context

BACKGROUND

Practice facilitation is an implementation strategy used to build practice capacity and support practice changes to improve health care outcomes. Yet, few studies have investigated how practice facilitation strategies are tailored to different primary care contexts.

OBJECTIVE

To identify contextual factors that drive facilitators' strategies to meet practice improvement goals, and how these strategies are tailored to practice context.

DESIGN

Semi-structured, qualitative interviews analyzed using inductive (open coding) and deductive (thematic) approaches. This study was conducted as part of a larger study, HealthyHearts New York City, which evaluated the impact of practice facilitation on adoption of cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment guidelines.

PARTICIPANTS

15 facilitators working in two practice contexts: small independent practices (SIPs) and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs).

MAIN MEASURES

Strategies facilitators use to support and promote practice changes and contextual factors that impact this approach.

KEY RESULTS

Contextual factors were described similarly across settings and included the policy environment, patient needs, site characteristics, leadership engagement, and competing priorities. We identified four facilitation strategies used to tailor to contextual factors and support practice change: (a) remain flexible to align with practice and organizational priorities; (b) build relationships; (c) provide value through information technology expertise; and (d) build capacity and create efficiencies. Facilitators in SIPs and FQHCs described using the same strategies, often in combination, but tailored to their specific contexts.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite significant infrastructure and resource differences between SIPs and FQHCs, the contextual factors that influenced the facilitator's change process and the strategies used to address those factors were remarkably similar. The findings emphasize that facilitators require multidisciplinary skills to support sustainable practice improvement in the context of varying complex health care delivery settings.

An observational study of a clinical guideline implementation project in primary care

Explorations of workflow development within primary care allow us to understand initial steps in the pace of knowledge and practice acclimatization within clinics. This study describes use of practice facilitation as an implementation strategy to communicate shared project goals and monitor and support refinement of practice behavior. This study engaged eight health care organizations, including 55 primary care practices, ≈380 clinicians, and ≈620 nursing and support staff in a guideline implementation project regarding United States Preventive Services Task Force use of aspirin recommendations for primary prevention of cardiovascular events.

Clinician Perspectives on the Benefits of Practice Facilitation for Small Primary Care Practices

PURPOSE

Small independent primary care practices (SIPs) often lack the resources to implement system changes. HealthyHearts NYC, funded through the EvidenceNOW initiative of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, studied the effectiveness of practice facilitation to improve cardiovascular disease- related care in 257 SIPs. We sought to understand SIP clinicians' perspectives on the benefits of practice facilitation.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with 19 SIP clinicians enrolled in HealthyHearts NYC. Interviews were transcribed and coded using deductive and inductive approaches. To understand whether the perceived benefits of practice facilitation differ based on the availability of internal staff for quality improvement (QI), we compared themes pertaining to benefits between practices with 3 or fewer office staff vs more than 3 office staff.

RESULTS

Clinicians perceived 2 main benefits of practice facilitation. First, facilitators served as a connection to the external health care environment for SIPs, often through teaching and information sharing. Second, facilitators provided electronic health record (EHR)/data expertise, often by teaching functionality and completing technical assistance and tasks. SIPs with more than 3 office staff felt that facilitators provided benefits primarily through teaching, whereas SIPs with 3 or fewer staff felt that facilitators also provided hands-on support. At the intersections of these benefits, there emerged 3 central practice facilitation benefits: (1) creating awareness of quality gaps, (2) connecting practices to information, resources, and strategies, and (3) optimizing the EHR for QI goals.

CONCLUSIONS

SIP clinicians perceived practice facilitation to be an important resource for connecting their practice to the external health care environment and resources, and helping their practice build QI capacity through teaching, hands-on support, and EHR-driven solutions.

Impact of Practice Facilitation in Primary Care on Chronic Disease Care Processes and Outcomes: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

More than 100 million individuals in the USA have been diagnosed with a chronic disease, yet chronic disease care has remained fragmented and of inconsistent quality. Improving chronic disease management has been challenging for primary care and internal medicine practitioners. Practice facilitation provides a comprehensive approach to chronic disease care. The objective is to evaluate the impact of practice facilitation on chronic disease outcomes in the primary care setting.

METHODS

This systematic review examined North American studies from PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science (database inception to August 2017). Investigators independently extracted and assessed the quality of the data on chronic disease process and clinical outcome measures. Studies implemented practice facilitation and reported quantifiable care processes and patient outcomes for chronic disease. Each study and their evidence were assessed for risk of bias and quality according to the Cochrane Collaboration and the Grade Collaboration tool.

RESULTS

This systematic review included 25 studies: 12 randomized control trials and 13 prospective cohort studies. Across all studies, practices and their clinicians were aware of the implementation of practice facilitation. Improvements were observed in most studies for chronic diseases including asthma, cancer (breast, cervical, and colorectal), cardiovascular disease (cerebrovascular disease, coronary artery disease, dyslipidemia, hypertension, myocardial infarction, and peripheral vascular disease), and type 2 diabetes. Mixed results were observed for chronic kidney disease and chronic illness care.

DISCUSSION

Overall, the results suggest that practice facilitation may improve chronic disease care measures. Across all studies, practices were aware of practice facilitation. These findings lend support for the potential expansion of practice facilitation in primary care. Future work will need to investigate potential opportunities for practice facilitation to improve chronic disease outcomes in other health care settings (e.g., specialty and multi-specialty practices) with standardized measures.

Quality of Cardiovascular Disease Care in Small Urban Practices

PURPOSE

We wanted to describe small, independent primary care practices' performance in meeting the Million Hearts ABCSs (aspirin use, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking screening and counseling), as well as on a composite measure that captured the extent to which multiple clinical targets are achieved for patients with a history of arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We also explored relationships between practice characteristics and ABCS measures.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional, bivariate analysis using baseline data from 134 practices in New York City. ABCS data were extracted from practices' electronic health records and aggregated to the site level. Practice characteristics were obtained from surveys of clinicians and staff at each practice.

RESULTS

The proportion of at-risk patients meeting clinical goals for each of the ABCS measures was 73.0% for aspirin use, 69.6% for blood pressure, 66.7% for cholesterol management, and 74.2% screened for smoking and counseled. For patients with a history of ASCVD, only 49% were meeting all ABC (aspirin use, blood pressure control, cholesterol management) targets (ie, composite measure). Solo practices were more likely to meet clinical guidelines for aspirin (risk ratio [RR] =1.17, P =.007) and composite (RR=1.29, P = .011) than practices with multiple clinicians.

CONCLUSION

Achieving targets for ABCS measures varied considerably across practices; however, small practices were meeting or exceeding Million Hearts goals (ie, 70% or greater). Practices were less likely to meet consistently clinical targets that apply to patients with a history of ASCVD risk factors. Greater emphasis is needed on providing support for small practices to address the complexity of managing patients with multiple risk factors for primary and secondary ASCVD.

EvidenceNOW: Balancing Primary Care Implementation and Implementation Research

The mission of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is to generate knowledge about how America's health care delivery system can provide high-quality care, and to ensure that health care professionals and systems understand and use this evidence. In 2015 AHRQ invested in the largest primary care research project in its history. EvidenceNOW is a $112 million effort to disseminate and implement patient-centered outcomes research evidence in more than 1,500 primary care practices and to study how quality-improvement support can build the capacity of primary care practices to understand and apply evidence.EvidenceNOW comprises 7 implementation research grants, each funded to provide external quality-improvement support to primary care practices to implement evidence-based cardiovascular care and to conduct rigorous internal evaluations of their work. An independent, external evaluator was funded to conduct an overarching evaluation using harmonized outcome measures and pooled data. The design of EvidenceNOW required resolving tensions between implementation and implementation research goals.EvidenceNOW is poised to develop a blueprint for how stakeholders can invest in strengthening the primary care delivery system and to offer a variety of resources and tools to improve the capacity of primary care to deliver evidence-based care. Federal agencies must maximize the value of research investments to show improvements in the lives and health of Americans and the timeliness of research results. Understanding the process and decisions of a federal agency in designing a large clinical practice transformation initiative may provide researchers, policy makers, and clinicians with insights into future implementation research, as well as improve responsiveness to funding announcements and the implementation of evidence in routine clinical care.

Practice Facilitators' and Leaders' Perspectives on a Facilitated Quality Improvement Program

PURPOSE

Practice facilitation is a promising approach to helping practices implement quality improvements. Our purpose was to describe practice facilitators' and practice leaders' perspectives on implementation of a practice facilitator-supported quality improvement program and describe where their perspectives aligned and diverged.

METHODS

We conducted interviews with practice leaders and practice facilitators who participated in a program that included 35 improvement strategies aimed at the ABCS of heart health (aspirin use in high-risk individuals, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking cessation). Rapid qualitative analysis was used to collect, organize, and analyze the data.

RESULTS

We interviewed 17 of the 33 eligible practice leaders, and the 10 practice facilitators assigned to those practices. Practice leaders and practice facilitators both reported value in the program's ability to bring needed, high-quality resources to practices. Practice leaders appreciated being able to set the schedule for facilitation and select among the 35 interventions. According to practice facilitators, however, relying on practice leaders to set the pace of the intervention resulted in a lower level of program intensity than intended. Practice leaders preferred targeted assistance, particularly electronic health record documentation guidance and linkages to state smoking cessation programs. Practice facilitators reported that the easiest interventions were those that did not alter care practices.

CONCLUSIONS

The dual perspectives of practice leaders and practice facilitators provide a more holistic picture of enablers and barriers to program implementation. There may be greater opportunities to assist small practices through simple, targeted practice facilitator-supported efforts rather than larger, comprehensive quality improvement projects.

Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC): Findings from Narrative Reports by Practice Facilitators

Practice facilitation can help family physicians adopt evidence-based guidelines. However, many practices struggle to effectively implement practice changes that result in meaningful improvement. Building on our previous research, we examined the barriers to and enablers of implementation perceived by practice facilitators (PF) in helping practices to adopt the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) program, which took place at 84 primary care practices in Ottawa, Canada between April 2008 and March 2012. We conducted a qualitative analysis of PFs’ narrative reports using a multiple case study design. We used a combined purposeful sampling approach to identify cases that 1) reflected experiences typical of the broader sample and 2) presented sufficient breadth of experience from each project step and family practice model. Sampling continued until data saturation was reached. Team members conducted a qualitative analysis of reports using an open and axial coding style and a constant comparative approach. Barriers and enablers were divided into five constructs: structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation. Narratives from 13 practice sites were reviewed. A total of 8 barriers and 11 enablers were consistently identified across practices. Barriers were most commonly reported at the organizational (n = 3) and structural level, (n = 2) while enablers were most common at the innovation level (n = 6). While physicians responded positively to PFs’ presence and largely supported their recommendations for practice change, organizational and structural aspects such as lack of time, minimal staff engagement, and provider reimbursement remained too great for practices to successfully implement practice-level changes.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00574808

•

Eight Barriers and 11 enablers to practice facilitation emerged across constructs.

•

Barriers were most common at the structural (n = 3) and organizational (n = 2) levels.

•

The majority of enablers occurred at the innovation level (n = 6).

•

The Chaudoir framework provided a comprehensive picture of barriers and enablers.

Physician perspectives on a tailored multifaceted primary care practice facilitation intervention for improvement of cardiovascular care

BACKGROUND

Practice facilitation is an effective way to help physicians implement change in their clinics, but little is known about physicians' perspectives on this service.

OBJECTIVES

To examine physicians' responses to a practice facilitation program, focussing on their overall satisfaction, perceived most significant clinical changes, and interactions with the facilitator.

METHODS

The Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care program investigated the impact of practice facilitation on improving the quality of cardiovascular primary care in Eastern Ontario, Canada, from 2007 to 2011. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of post-intervention surveys completed by participating physicians, using a constant comparison approach framed around the Chronic Care Model.

RESULTS

Ninety-five physicians completed the survey. Physicians overwhelmingly viewed the program positively, though descriptions of its benefits and impact varied widely. Facilitators filled three key roles for physicians, acting as a resource centre, motivator and outside perspective. Physicians adopted a number of changes in their practices. These changes include adoption of clinical information systems (diabetes registries), decision support tools (chart audits, guideline documents, flow sheets) and delivery system design (community resources).

CONCLUSIONS

Most physicians appreciated having access to a practice facilitator and viewed the intervention positively. Insight into physicians' perspectives on practice facilitation provides a valuable counterpoint to outcomes-based evaluations of such services. Further research should investigate potential obstacles in the group of physicians who make fewer practice changes, as well as the sustainability of this type of facilitation intervention.

Implementing guidelines to routinely prevent chronic vascular disease in primary care: the Preventive Evidence into Practice cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate an intervention to improve implementation of guidelines for the prevention of chronic vascular disease.

SETTING

32 urban general practices in 4 Australian states.

RANDOMISATION

Stratified randomisation of practices.

PARTICIPANTS

122 general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses (PNs) were recruited at baseline and 97 continued to 12 months. 21,848 patient records were audited for those aged 40-69 years who attended the practice in the previous 12 months without heart disease, stroke, diabetes, chronic renal disease, cognitive impairment or severe mental illness.

INTERVENTION

The practice level intervention over 6 months included small group training of practice staff, feedback on audited performance, practice facilitation visits and provision of patient education and referral information.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary: 1. Change in proportion of patients aged 40-69 years with smoking status, alcohol intake, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), blood pressure (BP) recorded and for those aged 45-69 years with lipids, fasting blood glucose and cardiovascular risk in the medical record. 2. Change in the level of risk for each factor.

SECONDARY

change in self-reported frequency and confidence of GPs and PNs in assessment.

RESULTS

Risk recording improved in the intervention but not the control group for WC (OR 2.52 (95% CI 1.30 to 4.91)), alcohol consumption (OR 2.19 (CI 1.04 to 4.64)), smoking status (OR 2.24 (1.17 to 4.29)) and cardiovascular risk (OR 1.50 (1.04 to 2.18)). There was no change in recording of BP, lipids, glucose or BMI and no significant change in the level of risk factors based on audit data. The confidence but not reported practices of GPs and PNs in the intervention group improved in the assessment of some risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This intervention was associated with improved recording of some risk factors but no change in the level of risk at the follow-up audit.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12612000578808, results.

Implementing asthma guidelines using practice facilitation and local learning collaboratives: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Guideline implementation in primary care has proven difficult. Although external assistance through performance feedback, academic detailing, practice facilitation (PF), and learning collaboratives seems to help, the best combination of interventions has not been determined.

METHODS

In a cluster randomized trial, we compared the independent and combined effectiveness of PF and local learning collaboratives (LLCs), combined with performance feedback and academic detailing, with performance feedback and academic detailing alone on implementation of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's Asthma Guidelines. The study was conducted in 3 primary care practice-based research networks. Medical records of patients with asthma seen during pre- and postintervention periods were abstracted to determine adherence to 6 guideline recommendations. McNemar's test and multivariate modeling were used to evaluate the impact of the interventions.

RESULTS

Across 43 practices, 1,016 patients met inclusion criteria. Overall, adherence to all 6 recommendations increased (P ≤.002). Examination of improvement by study arm in unadjusted analyses showed that practices in the control arm significantly improved adherence to 2 of 6 recommendations, whereas practices in the PF arm improved in 3, practices in the LLCs improved in 4, and practices in the PF + LLC arm improved in 5 of 6 recommendations. In multivariate modeling, PF practices significantly improved assessment of asthma severity (odds ratio [OR] = 2.5, 95% CI, 1.7-3.8) and assessment of asthma level of control (OR = 2.3, 95% CI, 1.5-3.5) compared with control practices. Practices assigned to LLCs did not improve significantly more than control practices for any recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of PF to performance feedback and academic detailing was helpful to practices attempting to improve adherence to asthma guidelines.

Practice facilitation to improve diabetes care in primary care: a report from the EPIC randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

We investigated 3 approaches for implementing the Chronic Care Model to improve diabetes care: (1) practice facilitation over 6 months using a reflective adaptive process (RAP) approach; (2) practice facilitation for up to 18 months using a continuous quality improvement (CQI) approach; and (3) providing self-directed (SD) practices with model information and resources, without facilitation.

METHODS

We conducted a cluster-randomized trial, called Enhancing Practice, Improving Care (EPIC), that compared these approaches among 40 small to midsized primary care practices. At baseline and 9 months and 18 months after enrollment, we assessed practice diabetes quality measures from chart audits and Practice Culture Assessment scores from clinician and staff surveys.

RESULTS

Although measures of the quality of diabetes care improved in all 3 groups (all P <.05), improvement was greater in CQI practices compared with both SD practices (P <.0001) and RAP practices (P <.0001); additionally, improvement was greater in SD practices compared with RAP practices (P <.05). In RAP practices, Change Culture scores showed a trend toward improvement at 9 months (P = .07) but decreased below baseline at 18 months (P <.05), while Work Culture scores decreased from 9 to 18 months (P <.05). Both scores were stable over time in SD and CQI practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Traditional CQI interventions are effective at improving measures of the quality of diabetes care, but may not improve practice change and work culture. Short-term practice facilitation based on RAP principles produced less improvement in quality measures than CQI or SD interventions and also did not produce sustained improvements in practice culture.

Consequences of a lack of standardization of continuing education terminology: the case of practice facilitation and educational outreach

Systematic reviews published in the quality improvement and continuing education literature have noted that the lack of standardized terminology for categorizing and describing various interventions in published studies is a major obstacle to drawing conclusions about their effectiveness. A case in point is practice facilitation and educational outreach. Although they are 2 long-standing interventions with some common characteristics, researchers studying 1 intervention may be unfamiliar with the other given the relatively separate literatures that have developed around both sets of terms. A comparison of articles included in recent systematic reviews of practice facilitation and educational outreach revealed a small but significant overlap of articles, journals, key words, and noncorresponding authors, but no overlap of corresponding authors. Based on these findings, the authors join the call for the creation of an intervention taxonomy and its application to these and other continuing education interventions.

Improving evidence-based primary care for chronic kidney disease: study protocol for a cluster randomized control trial for translating evidence into practice (TRANSLATE CKD)

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end stage renal disease (ESRD) are steadily increasing in prevalence in the United States. While there is reasonable evidence that specific activities can be implemented by primary care physicians (PCPs) to delay CKD progression and reduce mortality, CKD is under-recognized and undertreated in primary care offices, and PCPs are generally not familiar with treatment guidelines. The current study addresses the question of whether the facilitated TRANSLATE model compared to computer decision support (CDS) alone will lead to improved evidence-based care for CKD in primary care offices.

METHODS/DESIGN

This protocol consists of a cluster randomized controlled trial (CRCT) followed by a process and cost analysis. Only practices providing ambulatory primary care as their principal function, located in non-hospital settings, employing at least one primary care physician, with a minimum of 2,000 patients seen in the prior year, are eligible. The intervention will occur at the cluster level and consists of providing CKD-specific CDS versus CKD-specific CDS plus practice facilitation for all elements of the TRANSLATE model. Patient-level data will be collected from each participating practice to examine adherence to guideline-concordant care, progression of CKD and all-cause mortality. Patients are considered to meet stage three CKD criteria if at least two consecutive estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) measurements at least three months apart fall below 60 ml/min. The process evaluation (cluster level) will determine through qualitative methods the fidelity of the facilitated TRANSLATE program and find the challenges and enablers of the implementation process. The cost-effectiveness analysis will compare the benefit of the intervention of CDS alone against the intervention of CDS plus TRANSLATE (practice facilitation) in relationship to overall cost per quality adjusted years of life.

DISCUSSION

This study has three major innovations. First, this study adapts the TRANSLATE method, proven effective in diabetes care, to CKD. Second, we are creating a generalizable CDS specific to the Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative (KDOQI) guidelines for CKD. Additionally, this study will evaluate the effects of CDS versus CDS with facilitation and answer key questions regarding the cost-effectiveness of a facilitated model for improving CKD outcomes. The study is testing virtual facilitation and Academic detailing making the findings generalizable to any area of the country.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered as NCT01767883 on clinicaltrials.gov

Cost estimates for operating a primary care practice facilitation program

PURPOSE

Practice facilitation is widely recognized as a promising method for achieving large-scale practice redesign. Little is known, however, about the cost of providing practice facilitation to small primary practices from the prospective of an organization providing facilitation activities.

METHODS

We report practice facilitation costs on 19 practices in South Texas that were randomized to receive facilitation activities. The study design assured that each practice received at least 6 practice facilitation visits during the intervention year. We examined only the variable cost associated with practice facilitation activities. Fixed or administrative costs of providing facilitation actives were not captured. All facilitator activities (time, mileage, and materials) were self-reported by the practice facilitators and recorded in spreadsheets.

RESULTS

The median total variable cost of all practice facilitation activities from start-up through monitoring, including travel and food, was $9,670 per practice (ranging from $8,050 to $15,682). Median travel and food costs were an additional $2,054 but varied by clinic. Approximately 50% of the total cost is attributable to practice assessment and start-up activities, with another 31% attributable to practice facilitation visits. Sensitivity analysis suggests that a 24-visit practice facilitation protocol increased estimated median total variable costs of all practice facilitation activities only by $5,428, for a total of $15,098.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that, depending on the facilitators wages and the intensity of the intervention, the cost of practice facilitation ranges between $9,670 and $15,098 per practice per year and have the potential to be cost-neutral from a societal prospective if practice facilitation results in 2 fewer hospitalizations per practice per year.

Enhancing the primary care team to provide redesigned care: the roles of practice facilitators and care managers

Efforts to redesign primary care require multiple supports. Two potential members of the primary care team-practice facilitator and care manager-can play important but distinct roles in redesigning and improving care delivery. Facilitators, also known as quality improvement coaches, assist practices with coordinating their quality improvement activities and help build capacity for those activities-reflecting a systems-level approach to improving quality, safety, and implementation of evidence-based practices. Care managers provide direct patient care by coordinating care and helping patients navigate the system, improving access for patients, and communicating across the care team. These complementary roles aim to help primary care practices deliver coordinated, accessible, comprehensive, and patient-centered care.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of practice facilitation within primary care settings

PURPOSE

This study was a systematic review with a quantitative synthesis of the literature examining the overall effect size of practice facilitation and possible moderating factors. The primary outcome was the change in evidence-based practice behavior calculated as a standardized mean difference.

METHODS

In this systematic review, we searched 4 electronic databases and the reference lists of published literature reviews to find practice facilitation studies that identified evidence-based guideline implementation within primary care practices as the outcome. We included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies published from 1966 to December 2010 in English language only peer-reviewed journals. Reviews of each study were conducted and assessed for quality; data were abstracted, and standardized mean difference estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Publication bias, influence, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses were also conducted.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies contributed to the analysis for a total of 1,398 participating practices: 697 practice facilitation intervention and 701 control group practices. The degree of variability between studies was consistent with what would be expected to occur by chance alone (I2 = 20%). An overall effect size of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.43-0.68) favored practice facilitation (z = 8.76; P <.001), and publication bias was evident. Primary care practices are 2.76 (95% CI, 2.18-3.43) times more likely to adopt evidence-based guidelines through practice facilitation. Meta-regression analysis indicated that tailoring (P = .05), the intensity of the intervention (P = .03), and the number of intervention practices per facilitator (P = .004) modified evidence-based guideline adoption.

CONCLUSION

Practice facilitation has a moderately robust effect on evidence-based guideline adoption within primary care. Implementation fidelity factors, such as tailoring, the number of practices per facilitator, and the intensity of the intervention, have important resource implications.