Skip to content
Implementation Science at UW

Keywords: Implementation Strategies

✪ An implementation study of oral and blood‐based HIV self‐testing and linkage to care among men in rural and peri‐urban KwaZulu‐Natal, South Africa

Authors:

Adrienne E. Shapiro, Alastair van Heerden, Meighan Krows, Kombi Sausi, Nsika Sithole, Torin T. Schaafsma, Olivier Koole, Heidi van Rooyen, Connie L. Celum, & Ruanne V. Barnabas

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: June 2020

Read the full text in the open access Journal of the International AIDS Society

Abstract:

Introduction

In South Africa, HIV‐infected men are less likely than women to test and know their status (the first UNAIDS “90‐90‐90” target), and men have worse outcomes across the HIV care cascade. HIV self‐testing (HIVST) may address this testing disparity but questions remain over the most effective distribution strategy and linkage following a positive test result. We implemented a men‐focused HIVST distribution programme to evaluate components contributing to participation and retention.

Methods

We conducted an implementation study of multi‐venue HIVST kit distribution in rural and peri‐urban KwaZulu‐Natal (KZN), South Africa. We distributed HIVST kits at community points, workplaces and social venues for on site or take‐home use. Clients could choose blood‐based or oral‐fluid‐based HIVST kits and elect to watch an in‐person or video demonstration. We provided a USD2 incentive to facilitate reporting test results by phone or SMS. Persons with reactive HIVST results were provided immediate confirmatory tests (if used HIVST on site) or were referred for confirmatory testing (if took HIVST off site) and linkage to care for ART initiation. We describe the testing and linkage cascade in this sample and describe predictors of reactive HIVST results and linkage.

Results

Between July and November 2018, we distributed 4496 HIVST kits in two regions of KZN (96% to men, median age 28 (IQR 23 to 35). Most participants (58%) chose blood‐based HIVST and 42% chose oral‐swab kits. 11% of men were testing for the first time. A total of 3902 (83%) of testers reported their test result to the study team, with 314 (8%) screening positive for HIV. Among 274 men with reactive HIVST results, 68% linked to ART; no significant predictors of linkage were identified. 10% of kit users reported they would prefer a different type (oral vs. blood) of kit for repeat testing than the type they used.

Conclusions

HIVST is acceptable to men and rapid distribution with optional testing support is feasible in rural and peri‐urban settings. HIVST kits successfully reached younger men and identified undetected infections. Both oral and blood‐based HIVST were selected. Scaling up HIVST distribution and guidance may increase the number of first‐time testers among men and help achieve the first UNAIDS “90” for men in South Africa.

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

✪ The role of dissemination and implementation science in global breast cancer control programs: Frameworks, methods, and examples

Authors:

Anne F. Rositch, Karla Unger‐Saldaña, Rebecca J. DeBoer, Anne Ng’ang’a, & Bryan J. Weiner

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: April 2020

Read the full text in the open access journal Cancer

Abstract:

Global disparities in breast cancer outcomes are attributable to a sizable gap between evidence and practice in breast cancer control and management. Dissemination and implementation science (D&IS) seeks to understand how to promote the systematic uptake of evidence‐based interventions and/or practices into real‐world contexts. D&IS methods are useful for selecting strategies to implement evidence‐based interventions, adapting their implementation to new settings, and evaluating the implementation process as well as its outcomes to determine success and failure, and adjust accordingly.

Process models, explanatory theories, and evaluation frameworks are used in D&IS to develop implementation strategies, identify implementation outcomes, and design studies to evaluate these outcomes. In breast cancer control and management, research has been translated into evidence‐based, resource‐stratified guidelines by the Breast Health Global Initiative and others. D&IS should be leveraged to optimize the implementation of these guidelines, and other evidence‐based interventions, into practice across the breast cancer care continuum, from optimizing public education to promoting early detection, increasing guideline‐concordant clinical practice among providers, and analyzing and addressing barriers and facilitators in health care systems. Stakeholder engagement through processes such as co‐creation is critical.

In this article, the authors have provided a primer on the contribution of D&IS to phased implementation of global breast cancer control programs, provided 2 case examples of ongoing D&IS research projects in Tanzania, and concluded with recommendations for best practices for researchers undertaking this work.

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

✪ Capturing the patient voice: implementing patient-reported outcomes across the health system

Authors:

Elizabeth Austin, Cynthia LeRouge, Andrea L. Hartzler, Courtney Segal, & Danielle C. Lavallee

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: October 2019

Read the full text provided with open access, by the hybrid subscription journal Quality of Life Research
BACK TO THE ARCHIVE

Abstract:

Purpose

Supporting the capture and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at the point-of-care enriches information about important clinical and quality of life outcomes. Yet the ability to scale PROs across healthcare systems has been limited by knowledge gaps around how to manage the diversity of PRO uses and leverage health information technology. In this study, we report learnings and practice insights from UW Medicine’s practice transformation efforts to incorporate patient voice into multiple areas of care.

Methods

Using a participatory, action research approach, we engaged with UW Medicine clinical and administrative stakeholders experienced with PRO implementation to inventory PRO implementations across the health system, characterize common clinical uses for PROs, and develop recommendations for system-wide governance and implementation of PROs.

Results

We identified a wide breadth of PRO implementations (n = 14) in practice and found that nearly half (47%) of employed PRO measures captured shared clinical domains (e.g., depression). We developed three vignettes (use cases) that illustrate how users interact with PROs, characterize common ways PRO implementations support clinical care across the health system (1) Preventive care, (2) Chronic/Specialty care, and (3) Surgical/Interventional care), and elucidate opportunities to enhance efficient PRO implementations through system-level standards and governance.

Conclusions

Practice transformation efforts increasingly require integration of the patient voice into clinical care, often through the use of PROs. Learnings from our work highlight the importance of proactively considering how PROs will be used across the layers of healthcare organizations to optimize the design and governance of PROs.

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

✪ Use of Human-Centered Design to Improve Implementation of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies in Low-Resource Communities: Protocol for Studies Applying a Framework to Assess Usability


Authors:

Aaron R Lyon, Sean A Munson, Brenna N Renn, David C Atkins, Michael D Pullmann, Emily Friedman, & Patricia A Areán

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: September 2019

Read the full text in the open access journal JMIR Research Protocols

Abstract:

Background

This paper presents the protocol for the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)–funded University of Washington’s ALACRITY (Advanced Laboratories for Accelerating the Reach and Impact of Treatments for Youth and Adults with Mental Illness) Center (UWAC), which uses human-centered design (HCD) methods to improve the implementation of evidence-based psychosocial interventions (EBPIs). We propose that usability—the degree to which interventions and implementation strategies can be used with ease, efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction—is a fundamental, yet poorly understood determinant of implementation.

Objective

We present a novel Discover, Design/Build, and Test (DDBT) framework to study usability as an implementation determinant. DDBT will be applied across Center projects to develop scalable and efficient implementation strategies (eg, training tools), modify existing EBPIs to enhance usability, and create usable and nonburdensome decision support tools for quality delivery of EBPIs.

Methods

Stakeholder participants will be implementation practitioners/intermediaries, mental health clinicians, and patients with mental illness in nonspecialty mental health settings in underresourced communities. Three preplanned projects and 12 pilot studies will employ the DDBT model to (1) identify usability challenges in implementing EBPIs in underresourced settings; (2) iteratively design solutions to overcome these challenges; and (3) compare the solution to the original version of the EPBI or implementation strategy on usability, quality of care, and patient-reported outcomes. The final products from the center will be a streamlined modification and redesign model that will improve the usability of EBPIs and implementation strategies (eg, tools to support EBPI education and decision making); a matrix of modification targets (ie, usability issues) that are both common and unique to EBPIs, strategies, settings, and patient populations; and a compilation of redesign strategies and the relative effectiveness of the redesigned solution compared to the original EBPI or strategy.

Results

The UWAC received institutional review board approval for the three separate studies in March 2018 and was funded in May 2018.

Conclusions

The outcomes from this center will inform the implementation of EBPIs by identifying cross-cutting features of EBPIs and implementation strategies that influence the use and acceptability of these interventions, actively involving stakeholder clinicians and implementation practitioners in the design of the EBPI modification or implementation strategy solution and identifying the impact of HCD-informed modifications and solutions on intervention effectiveness and quality.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03515226 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03515226), NCT03514394 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03514394), and NCT03516513 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03516513).

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/14990

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