Community & Stakeholder Engagement Archives - Page 4 of 5

✪ Enhanced or hindered research benefits? A realist review of community engagement and participatory research practices for non-communicable disease prevention in low- and middle-income countries

Abstract:

Introduction

Community engagement and participatory research are widely used and considered important for ethical health research and interventions. Based on calls to unpack their complexity and observed biases in their favour, we conducted a realist review with a focus on non-communicable disease prevention. The aim was to generate an understanding of how and why engagement or participatory practices enhance or hinder the benefits of non-communicable disease research and interventions in low- and middle-income countries.

Methods

We retroductively formulated theories based on existing literature and realist interviews. After initial searches, preliminary theories and a search strategy were developed. We searched three databases and screened records with a focus on theoretical and empirical relevance. Insights about contexts, strategies, mechanisms and outcomes were extracted and synthesised into six theories. Five realist interviews were conducted to complement literature-based theorising. The final synthesis included 17 quality-appraised articles describing 15 studies.

Results

We developed six theories explaining how community engagement or participatory research practices either enhance or hinder the benefits of non-communicable disease research or interventions. Benefit-enhancing mechanisms include community members’ agency being realised, a shared understanding of the benefits of health promotion, communities feeling empowered, and community members feeling solidarity and unity. Benefit-hindering mechanisms include community members’ agency remaining unrealised and participation being driven by financial motives or reputational expectations

Conclusion

Our review challenges assumptions about community engagement and participatory research being solely beneficial in the context of non-communicable disease prevention in low- and middle-income countries. We present both helpful and harmful pathways through which health and research outcomes are affected. Our practical recommendations relate to maximising benefits and minimising harm by addressing institutional inflexibility and researcher capabilities, managing expectations on research, promoting solidarity in solving public health challenges and sharing decision-making power.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

Stakeholder Engagement to Identify Implementation Strategies to Overcome Barriers to Delivering Chronic Pain Treatments: A NIDILRR and VA TBI Model Systems Collaborative Project

✪ Participatory development of a target policy profile to support soil-transmitted helminth elimination

Abstract:

Introduction

Soil-transmitted helminths (STH) are parasitic worms that infect nearly a quarter of the world's population, particularly those living in communities without access to adequate water, sanitation, and housing. Emerging evidence suggests that it may be possible to interrupt transmission of STH by deworming individuals of all ages via community-wide MDA (cMDA), as opposed to only treating children and other focal populations. Transitioning from a policy of STH control to STH elimination in targeted areas would require a fundamental shift in STH policy and programming. This policy change would require updated guidance to support countries as they adapt their current approaches for STH surveillance, supply chain management, community mobilization, and core programmatic activities in pursuit of STH elimination. There is an opportunity to engage with key stakeholders, such as program implementers and implementation partners, to understand what evidence they need to confidently adopt a new policy guideline and to deliver guideline adherent management at scale.

Methods

We aimed to engage with STH stakeholders to develop a Target Policy Profile (TPoP), a single document that describes optimal characteristics and evidence requirements that STH stakeholders prioritized in future potential STH transmission interruption efforts. Steps in TPoP development included a scoping review and key informant interviews (KIIs), which were used to design a two-stage Delphi technique to identify and verify TPoP components.

Results

The scoping review resulted in 25 articles, and 8 experts participated in KII's. Twenty respondents completed the first Delphi survey and 10 respondents completed the second. This systematic effort resulted in a net of 3 key information domains (background/context, clinical considerations, and implementation considerations) encompassing 24 evidence categories (examples include evidence regarding safety and adverse events, implementation feasibility, or evidence dissemination). For each evidence category, STH stakeholders reviewed, endorsed, or revised a range of options for how the evidence could be presented.

Discussion

This information can be used by guideline committees or global policy makers prior to convening guideline advisory groups. The TPoP tool may also speed the process of stakeholder consensus building around guidelines, accelerating progress towards implementing evidence-based policy at scale.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

Factors Affecting Post-trial Sustainment or De-implementation of Study Interventions: A Narrative Review

✪ Optimising scale-up for public health impact: a multimethod implementation science research protocol to improve infant health outcomes in Ethiopia

Abstract:

Introduction

Child mortality rates remain high in sub-Saharan Africa, including Ethiopia. We are conducting a cluster randomised control trial in the Gondar zone of the Amhara region to determine the impact of pairing Orthodox priests with community health workers, known locally as the Health Development Army (HDA), on newborns’ nutritional status, early illness identification and treatment, and vaccination completeness.

Ensuring intervention efficacy with scientific rigour is essential, but there are often delays in adopting evidence into policy and programmes. Here, we present a protocol for conducting parallel implementation research alongside an efficacy study to understand intervention implementability and scalability. This will help develop a scale-up strategy for effective elements of the intervention to ensure rapid implementation at scale.

Methods and Analysis

We will conduct a stakeholder analysis of key implementation stakeholders and readiness surveys to assess their readiness to scale up the intervention. We will conduct semistructured interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders, including HDA members, health workers, Orthodox priests, and caregivers, to determine the core intervention elements that need to be scaled, barriers and facilitators to scaling up the intervention in diverse sociocultural settings, as well as the human and technical requirements for national and regional implementation. Finally, to determine the financial resources necessary for sustaining and scaling the intervention, we will conduct activity-based costing to estimate implementation costs from the provider’s perspective.

Ethics and dissemination

The study received approval from the University of Gondar Institutional Review Board (approval no: VP/RTT/05/1030/2022) and the University of Washington Human Subjects Division (approval no: STUDY00015369). Participants will consent to participate. Results will be disseminated through workshops with stakeholders, local community meetings, presentations at local and international conferences, and journal publications. The study will provide evidence for factors to consider in developing a scale-up strategy to integrate the intervention into routine health system practices.
^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

✪ Integrating a focus on health equity in implementation science: Case examples from the national cancer institute’s implementation science in cancer control centers (ISC3) network

Abstract:

Background

A Health Equity Task Force (HETF) of members from seven Centers funded by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Implementation Science in Cancer Control Centers (ISC3) network sought to identify case examples of how Centers were applying a focus on health equity in implementation science to inform future research and capacity-building efforts.

Methods

HETF members at each ISC3 collected information on how health equity was conceptualized, operationalized, and addressed in initial research and capacity-building efforts across the seven ISC3 Centers funded in 2019–2020. Each Center completed a questionnaire assessing five health equity domains central to implementation science (e.g., community engagement; implementation science theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs); and engaging underrepresented scholars). Data generated illustrative examples from these five domains.

Results

Centers reported a range of approaches focusing on health equity in implementation research and capacity-building efforts, including (1) engaging diverse community partners/settings in making decisions about research priorities and projects; (2) applying health equity within a single TMF applied across projects or various TMFs used in specific projects; (3) evaluating health equity in operationalizing and measuring health and implementation outcomes; (4) building capacity for health equity-focused implementation science among trainees, early career scholars, and partnering organizations; and (5) leveraging varying levels of institutional resources and efforts to engage, include, and support underrepresented scholars.

Conclusions

Examples of approaches to integrating health equity across the ISC3 network can inform other investigators and centers’ efforts to build capacity and infrastructure to support growth and expansion of health equity-focused implementation science.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

✪ Toward a more comprehensive understanding of organizational influences on implementation: the organization theory for implementation science framework

Abstract:

Introduction

Implementation is influenced by factors beyond individual clinical settings. Nevertheless, implementation research often focuses on factors related to individual providers and practices, potentially due to limitations of available frameworks. Extant frameworks do not adequately capture the myriad organizational influences on implementation. Organization theories capture diverse organizational influences but remain underused in implementation science. To advance their use among implementation scientists, we distilled 70 constructs from nine organization theories identified in our previous work into theoretical domains in the Organization Theory for Implementation Science (OTIS) framework.

Methods

The process of distilling organization theory constructs into domains involved concept mapping and iterative consensus-building. First, we recruited organization and implementation scientists to participate in an online concept mapping exercise in which they sorted organization theory constructs into domains representing similar theoretical concepts. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses were used to produce visual representations (clusters) of the relationships among constructs in concept maps. Second, to interpret concept maps, we engaged members of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) OTIS workgroup in consensus-building discussions.

Results

Twenty-four experts participated in concept mapping. Based on resulting construct groupings' coherence, OTIS workgroup members selected the 10-cluster solution (from options of 7–13 clusters) and then reorganized clusters in consensus-building discussions to increase coherence. This process yielded six final OTIS domains: organizational characteristics (e.g., size; age); governance and operations (e.g., organizational and social subsystems); tasks and processes (e.g., technology cycles; excess capacity); knowledge and learning (e.g., tacit knowledge; sense making); characteristics of a population of organizations (e.g., isomorphism; selection pressure); and interorganizational relationships (e.g., dominance; interdependence).

Discussion

Organizational influences on implementation are poorly understood, in part due to the limitations of extant frameworks. To improve understanding of organizational influences on implementation, we distilled 70 constructs from nine organization theories into six domains. Applications of the OTIS framework will enhance understanding of organizational influences on implementation, promote theory-driven strategies for organizational change, improve understanding of mechanisms underlying relationships between OTIS constructs and implementation, and allow for framework refinement. Next steps include testing the OTIS framework in implementation research and adapting it for use among policymakers and practitioners.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

✪ HPV vaccination in Kenya: a study protocol to assess stakeholders’ perspectives on implementation drivers of HPV vaccination and the acceptability of the reduced dose strategy among providers

Abstract:

Background:

Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among Kenyan women. Persistent infection with high-risk oncogenic Human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes is a necessary cause of cervical cancer. HPV vaccines are safe, durable, and efficacious in preventing incident HPV infections. In Kenya, despite efforts to increase HPV vaccination, coverage remains low. We sought to assess: (1) barriers and facilitators of HPV vaccination from the perspective of adolescent girls and young women (AGYW), their guardians as well as stakeholders involved in HPV vaccine delivery, and (2) the acceptability of the single dose of the HPV vaccination among healthcare providers (HCPs).

Methods:

Our study is nested within the KENya Single-dose HPV-vaccine Efficacy study (KEN SHE) that sought to test the efficacy of single-dose bivalent (HPV 16/18) and single-dose nonavalent (HPV 16/18/31/33/45/52/58/6/11) vaccination. We are conducting this study in Kiambu, Nairobi, and Kisumu counties. In these counties, we are interviewing stakeholders (n = ∼25), selected based on their role in HPV vaccination at the county and national levels. Interviews are audio recorded and conducted in English or Swahili. The semi-structured interview guides were designed based on: (1) the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) for AGYW and guardians and (2) the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) for other stakeholders. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) was leveraged to design the survey administered to HCPs (n = ∼309) involved in HPV vaccination. We will develop a codebook based on emerging codes from the transcripts and constructs from the TDF and CFIR. Emerging themes will be summarized highlighting similarities and differences between and within the different stakeholder groups and counties. Descriptive statistics and a χ2 test will be used to assess the distribution of responses between the different sites and regression analysis will be used to assess factors associated with high acceptability of the single-dose strategy while controlling for confounding variables.

Discussion:

Our study will describe key barriers and facilitators that affect HPV vaccination from the perspective of multiple stakeholders as well as insights on the perspective of HCPs towards the single-dose strategy to inform the designing of strategies to increase HPV vaccination uptake in Kenya and comparable settings.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

✪ Implementation studio: implementation support program to build the capacity of rural community health educators serving immigrant communities to implement evidence-based cancer prevention and control interventions

Abstract:

Purpose

Rural community-based organizations (CBOs) serving immigrant communities are critical settings for implementing evidence-based interventions (EBIs). The Implementation Studio is a training and consultation program focused on facilitating the selection, adaptation, and implementation of cancer prevention and control EBIs. This paper describes implementation and evaluation of the Implementation Studio on CBO’s capacity to implement EBIs and their clients’ knowledge of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and intention to screen.

Methods

Thirteen community health educators (CHEs) from two CBOs participated in the Implementation Studio. Both CBOs selected CRC EBIs during the Studio. The evaluation included two steps. The first step assessed the CHEs’ capacity to select, adapt, and implement an EBI. The second step assessed the effect of the CHEs-delivered EBIs on clients’ knowledge of CRC and intention to screen (n = 44).

Results

All CHEs were Hispanic and women. Pre/post-evaluation of the Studio showed an increase on CHEs knowledge about EBIs (pre: 23% to post: 75%; p < 0.001). CHEs’ ability to select, adapt, and implement EBIs also increased, respectively: select EBI (pre: 21% to post: 92%; p < 0.001), adapt EBI (pre: 21% to post: 92%; p < 0.001), and implement EBI (pre: 29% to post: 75%; p = 0.003). Pre/post-evaluation of the CHE-delivered EBI showed an increase on CRC screening knowledge (p < 0.5) and intention to screen for CRC by their clients.

Conclusion

Implementation Studio can address unique needs of low resource rural CBOs. An implementation support program with training and consultation has potential to build the capacity of rural CBOs serving immigrant communities to implementation of cancer prevention and control EBIs.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

✪ Comparison of methods to engage diverse stakeholder populations in prioritizing PrEP implementation strategies for testing in resource-limited settings: a cross-sectional study

Abstract:

Background

There is a lack of consensus about how to prioritize potential implementation strategies for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) delivery. We compared several prioritization methods for their agreement and pragmatism in practice in a resource-limited setting.

Methods

We engaged diverse stakeholders with clinical PrEP delivery and PrEP decision-making experience across 55 facilities in Kenya to prioritize 16 PrEP delivery strategies. We compared four strategy prioritization methods: (1) “past experience surveys” with experienced practitioners reflecting on implementation experience (N = 182); (2 and 3) “pre- and post-small-group ranking” surveys before and after group discussion (N = 44 and 40); (4) “go-zone” quadrant plots of perceived effectiveness vs feasibility. Kendall’s correlation analysis was used to compare strategy prioritization using the four methods. Additionally, participants were requested to group strategies into three bundles with up to four strategies/bundle by phone and online survey.

Results

The strategy ranking correlation was strongest between the pre- and post-small-group rankings (Tau: 0.648; p < 0.001). There was moderate correlation between go-zone plots and post-small-group rankings (Tau: 0.363; p = 0.079) and between past-experience surveys and post-small-group rankings (Tau: 0.385; p = 0.062). For strategy bundling, participants primarily chose bundles of strategies in the order in which they were listed, reflecting option ordering bias. Neither the phone nor online approach was effective in selecting strategy bundles. Participants agreed that the strategy ranking activities conducted during the workshop were useful in prioritizing a final set of strategies.

Conclusions

Both experienced and inexperienced stakeholder participants’ strategy rankings tended to prioritize strategies perceived as feasible. Small group discussions focused on feasibility and effectiveness revealed moderately different priorities than individual rankings. The strategy bundling approach, though less time- and resource-intensive, was not effective. Future research should further compare the relative effectiveness and pragmatism of methodologies to prioritize implementation strategies.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal BMJ Global Health

Abstract:

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Authors:

Subscription Required for Full Text Access

Read the full text in the subscription access Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Frontiers in Health Services

Abstract:

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Authors:

Subscription Required for Full Text Access

Read the full text in the Journal of General Internal Medicine

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal BMJ Open

Abstract:

Introduction

Methods and Analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access Journal of Clinical and Translational Science

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Frontiers in Health Services

Abstract:

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Frontiers in Health Services

Abstract:

Background:

Methods:

Discussion:

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text open access in the journal Cancer Causes and Control

Abstract:

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science Communications

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions