United States Archives - Page 8 of 29 - Implementation Science at UW

Suicide prevention safety planning in the US Department of defense: Qualitative assessment of training

✪ Community partner coauthorship for increased implementation science impact: Strengthening capacity and engagement

Abstract:

Engaging diverse partners in each phase of the research process is the gold standard of community-engaged research and adds value to the impact of implementation science. However, partner engagement in dissemination, particularly meaningful involvement in developing peer-reviewed manuscripts, is lacking. The Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control are using the Translational Science Benefits Model to demonstrate the impact of our work beyond traditional metrics, including building capacity and promoting community engagement. This paper presents a case example of one center that has developed a policy for including community partners as coauthors. Standard practices are used to foster clear communications and bidirectional collaboration. Of published papers focused on center infrastructure and implementation research pilots, 92% have community partner coauthors. This includes 21 individuals in roles ranging from physician assistant to medical director to quality manager. Through this intentional experience of co-creation, community partners have strengthened implementation science expertise. Community coauthors have also ensured that data interpretation and dissemination reflect real-world practice environments and offer sustainable strategies for rapid translation to practice improvements. Funders, academic journals, and researchers all have important roles to play in supporting community coauthors as critical thought partners who can help to narrow the gap between research and practice.

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

✪ Usability of a Web-Based App for Increasing Adolescent Vaccination in Primary Care Settings: Think-Aloud and Survey Assessment

Abstract:

Background

In the United States, only 58% of teens receive the recommended 2 doses of the human papillomavirus vaccine by 15 years of age. Overcoming vaccine hesitancy often requires effective communication between clinicians and parents to address specific concerns. To support this, we developed ProtectMe4, a multilevel, theory-informed web-based intervention designed to address parents’ vaccine-related questions and assist clinicians in discussing vaccine concerns for 4 adolescent vaccines.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the usability of ProtectMe4 in routine care settings across 3 pediatric primary care clinics. Specifically, the study aims to (1) observe the proposed workflow in practice, (2) identify usability issues experienced by parents and clinicians, and (3) assess the perceptions of both parents and clinicians regarding the app’s usability.

Methods

On designated days in 2020 and 2021, the study team recruited parents of 11- to 12-year-old patients attending appointments with participating clinicians. We conducted think-aloud assessments during routine care visits and administered a usability survey after participants used the app. For parents, we simultaneously video-recorded the app screens and audio-recorded their commentary. For clinicians, observational notes were taken regarding their actions and comments. Timings recorded within the app provided data on the length of use. We reviewed the recordings and notes to compile a list of identified issues and calculated the frequencies of survey responses.

Results

Out of 12 parents invited to use the app, 9 (75%) participated. Two parents who were invited outside of the planned workflow, after seeing the clinician, refused to participate. For the parents whose child’s vaccination record was identified by the app, the median time spent using the app was 9 (range 6-28) minutes. Think-aloud assessment results for parents were categorized into 2 themes: (1) troubleshooting vaccine record identification and (2) clarifying the app content and purpose. Among the 8 parents who completed the survey, at least 75% (6/8) agreed with each acceptability measure related to user satisfaction, perceived usefulness, and acceptance. These parents’ children were patients of 4 of the 7 participating clinicians. Consistent with the planned workflow, clinicians viewed the app before seeing the patient in 4 of 9 (44%) instances. The median time spent on the app per patient was 95 (range 5-240) seconds. Think-aloud assessment results for clinicians were grouped into 2 themes: (1) trust of app vaccine results and (2) clarifying the app content. On the survey, clinicians were unanimously positive about the app, with an average System Usability Scale score of 87.5 (SE 2.5).

Conclusion

This mixed methods evaluation demonstrated that ProtectMe4 was usable and acceptable to both parents and clinicians in real-world pediatric primary care. Improved coordination among clinic staff is needed to ensure the app is consistently offered to patients and reviewed by clinicians before seeing the patient.

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

✪ Implementation of collaborative care for depression in VA HIV clinics: Translating Initiatives for Depression into Effective Solutions (HITIDES): protocol for a cluster-randomized type 3 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial

Abstract:

Background

Depression is the most diagnosed mental health condition among people living with HIV. Collaborative care is an effective intervention for depression, typically delivered in primary care settings. The HIV Translating Initiatives for Depression into Effective Solutions (HITIDES) clinical intervention involves a depression care team housed off-site that supports depression care delivery by HIV care providers. In a randomized controlled trial, HITIDES significantly improved depression symptoms for veterans living with HIV and delivered cost savings. However, no HIV clinics in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) have implemented HITIDES; as such, it is unclear what implementation strategies are necessary to launch and sustain this intervention.

Methods

This hybrid type-3 effectiveness-implementation trial examines the implementation and effectiveness of HITIDES in 8 VHA HIV clinics randomly assigned to one of two implementation arms. Each arm uses a different implementation strategy package. Arm 1 includes an intervention operations guide; an on-site clinical champion who, with the help of a peer community of practice, will work with local clinicians and leadership to implement HITIDES at their site; and patient engagement in implementation tools. Arm 2 includes all strategies from Arm 1 with assistance from an external facilitator. The primary implementation outcomes is reach; secondary outcomes include adoption, implementation dose, depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation. We will conduct a budget impact analysis of the implementation strategy packages. We hypothesize that Arm 2 will be associated with greater reach and adoption and that Arm 1 will be less costly.

Discussion

Preliminary work identified implementation strategies acceptable to veterans living with HIV and HIV care providers; however, the effectiveness and cost of these strategies are unknown. While the depression care team can deliver services consistently with high quality, the ability of the depression care team to engage with HIV care providers at sites is unknown. Findings from this study will be used to inform selection of implementation strategies for a broad rollout to enhance depression and suicide care for people living with HIV.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05901272, Registered 10 May 2023, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05901272

Contributions to the literature

It is well-recognized that those with HIV infections need greater access to mental healthcare for depression. But it is not known how best to support deployment of evidence-based mental healthcare to them.
This paper describes an implementation trial to roll out depression care in HIV clinics.
With the fragmentation of care among so many subspecialties, understanding how to roll out mental health support across specialty medical settings is crucial.
Results will be relevant to mental health and suicide support not only for those with HIV but across many sectors of care for adults receiving care in specialty medical settings.

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

✪ A research agenda to advance the study of implementation mechanisms

Abstract:

Background

Implementation science scholars have made significant progress identifying factors that enable or obstruct the implementation of evidence-based interventions, and testing strategies that may modify those factors. However, little research sheds light on how or why strategies work, in what contexts, and for whom. Studying implementation mechanisms—the processes responsible for change—is crucial for advancing the field of implementation science and enhancing its value in facilitating equitable policy and practice change. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded a conference series to achieve two aims: (1) develop a research agenda on implementation mechanisms, and (2) actively disseminate the research agenda to research, policy, and practice audiences. This article presents the resulting research agenda, including priorities and actions to encourage its execution.

Method

Building on prior concept mapping work, in a semi-structured, 3-day, in-person working meeting, 23 US-based researchers used a modified nominal group process to generate priorities and actions for addressing challenges to studying implementation mechanisms. During each of the three 120-min sessions, small groups responded to the prompt: “What actions need to be taken to move this research forward?” The groups brainstormed actions, which were then shared with the full group and discussed with the support of facilitators trained in structured group processes. Facilitators grouped critical and novel ideas into themes. Attendees voted on six themes they prioritized to discuss in a fourth, 120-min session, during which small groups operationalized prioritized actions. Subsequently, all ideas were collated, combined, and revised for clarity by a subset of the authorship team.

Results

From this multistep process, 150 actions emerged across 10 priority areas, which together constitute the research agenda. Actions included discrete activities, projects, or products, and ways to shift how research is conducted to strengthen the study of implementation mechanisms.

Conclusions

This research agenda elevates actions to guide the selection, design, and evaluation of implementation mechanisms. By delineating recommended actions to address the challenges of studying implementation mechanisms, this research agenda facilitates expanding the field of implementation science, beyond studying what works to how and why strategies work, in what contexts, for whom, and with which interventions.

Contributions to the literature

This research agenda operationalizes a set of activities to strengthen the implementation science field’s focus on why and how strategies work.
The research agenda addresses the following activities: accumulating knowledge, innovating methods and overcoming design challenges, improving measurement, providing guidance for specifying causal mechanisms, increasing focus on theorizing, engaging the policy and practice community, engaging funders, building capacity, enhancing equity, and effectively disseminating methods.
Studying implementation mechanisms can promote pragmatic strategy development, equitable processes and outcomes, and policy relevance by clarifying pathways for overcoming contextually specific barriers and achieving outcomes of interest.

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

✪ Artificial Intelligence–Augmented Clinical Decision Support Systems for Pregnancy Care: Systematic Review

Abstract:

Background

Despite the emerging application of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) in pregnancy care and the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) over the last decade, it remains understudied regarding the role of AI in CDSS specialized for pregnancy care.

Objectives

To identify and synthesize AI-augmented CDSS in pregnancy care, CDSS functionality, AI methodologies, and clinical implementation, we reported a systematic review based on empirical studies that examined AI-augmented CDSS in pregnancy care.

Methods

We retrieved studies that examined AI-augmented CDSS in pregnancy care using database queries involved with titles, abstracts, keywords, and MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms. Bibliographic records from their inception to 2022 were retrieved from PubMed/MEDLINE (n=206), Embase (n=101), and ACM Digital Library (n=377), followed by eligibility screening and literature review. The eligibility criteria include empirical studies that (1) developed or tested AI methods, (2) developed or tested CDSS or CDSS components, and (3) focused on pregnancy care. Data of studies used for review and appraisal include title, abstract, keywords, MeSH terms, full text, and supplements. Publications with ancillary information or overlapping outcomes were synthesized as one single study. Reviewers independently reviewed and assessed the quality of selected studies.

Results

We identified 30 distinct studies of 684 studies from their inception to 2022. Topics of clinical applications covered AI-augmented CDSS from prenatal, early pregnancy, obstetric care, and postpartum care. Topics of CDSS functions include diagnostic support, clinical prediction, therapeutics recommendation, and knowledge base.

Conclusion

Our review acknowledged recent advances in CDSS studies including early diagnosis of prenatal abnormalities, cost-effective surveillance, prenatal ultrasound support, and ontology development. To recommend future directions, we also noted key gaps from existing studies, including (1) decision support in current childbirth deliveries without using observational data from consequential fetal or maternal outcomes in future pregnancies; (2) scarcity of studies in identifying several high-profile biases from CDSS, including social determinants of health highlighted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; and (3) chasm between internally validated CDSS models, external validity, and clinical implementation.

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

✪ Changing hearts and minds: theorizing how, when, and under what conditions three social influence implementation strategies work

Abstract:

Background

Opinion leadership, educational outreach visiting, and innovation championing are commonly used strategies to address barriers to implementing innovations and evidence-based practices in healthcare settings. Despite voluminous research, ambiguities persist in how these strategies work and under what conditions they work well, work poorly, or work at all. The current paper develops middle-range theories to address this gap.

Methods

Conceptual articles, systematic reviews, and empirical studies informed the development of causal pathway diagrams (CPDs). CPDs are visualization tools for depicting and theorizing about the causal process through which strategies operate, including the mechanisms they activate, the barriers they address, and the proximal and distal outcomes they produce. CPDs also clarify the contextual conditions (i.e., preconditions and moderators) that influence whether, and to what extent, the strategy's causal process unfolds successfully. Expert panels of implementation scientists and health professionals rated the plausibility of these preliminary CPDs and offered comments and suggestions on them.

Findings

Theoretically, opinion leadership addresses potential adopters' uncertainty about likely consequences of innovation use (determinant) by promoting positive attitude formation about the innovation (mechanism), which results in an adoption decision (proximal outcome), which leads to innovation use (intermediate outcome). As this causal process repeats, penetration, or spread of innovation use, occurs (distal outcome). Educational outreach visiting addresses knowledge barriers, attitudinal barriers, and behavioral barriers (determinants) by promoting critical thinking and reflection about evidence and practice (mechanism), which results in behavioral intention (proximal outcome), behavior change (intermediate outcome), and fidelity, or guideline adherence (distal outcome). Innovation championing addresses organizational inertia, indifference, and resistance (determinants) by promoting buy-in to the vision, fostering a positive implementation climate, and increasing collective efficacy (mechanisms), which leads to participation in implementation activities (proximal outcome), initial use of the innovation with increasing skill (intermediate outcome) and, ultimately, greater penetration and fidelity (distal outcomes). Experts found the preliminary CPDs plausible or highly plausible and suggested additional mechanisms, moderators, and preconditions, which were used to amend the initial CPD.

Discussion

The middle-range theories depicted in the CPDs furnish testable propositions for implementation research and offer guidance for selecting, designing, and evaluating these social influence implementation strategies in both research studies and practice settings.

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

✪ Integrating causal pathway diagrams into practice facilitation to address colorectal cancer screening disparities in primary care

Abstract:

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death and the second most common cancer diagnosis among the Hispanic population in the United States. However, CRC screening prevalence remains lower among Hispanic adults than among non-Hispanic white adults. To reduce CRC screening disparities, efforts to implement CRC screening evidence-based interventions in primary care organizations (PCOs) must consider their potential effect on existing screening disparities. More research is needed to understand how to leverage existing implementation science methodologies to improve health disparities. The Coaching to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening Equity (CoachIQ) pilot study explores whether integrating two implementation science tools, Causal Pathway Diagrams and practice facilitation, is a feasible and effective way to address CRC screening disparities among Hispanic patients.

Methods

We used a quasi-experimental, mixed methods design to evaluate feasibility and assess initial signals of effectiveness of the CoachIQ approach. Three PCOs received coaching from CoachIQ practice facilitators over a 12-month period. Three non-equivalent comparison group PCOs received coaching during the same period as participants in a state quality improvement program. We conducted descriptive analyses of screening rates and coaching activities.

Results

The CoachIQ practice facilitators discussed equity, facilitated prioritization of QI activities, and reviewed CRC screening disparities during a higher proportion of coaching encounters than the comparison group practice facilitator. While the mean overall CRC screening rate in the comparison PCOs increased from 34 to 41%, the mean CRC screening rate for Hispanic patients did not increase from 30%. In contrast, the mean overall CRC screening rate at the CoachIQ PCOs increased from 41 to 44%, and the mean CRC screening rate for Hispanic patients increased from 35 to 39%.

Conclusions

The CoachIQ program merges two implementation science methodologies, practice facilitation and causal pathway diagrams, to help PCOs focus quality improvement efforts on improving CRC screening while also reducing screening disparities. Results from this pilot study demonstrate key differences between CoachIQ facilitation and standard facilitation, and point to the potential of the CoachIQ approach to decrease disparities in CRC screening.

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

✪ Implementation Strategies Used by Facilitators to Improve Control of Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Primary Care

✪ Are we being equitable enough? Lessons learned from sites lost in an implementation trial

Abstract:

Background

There is a growing interest in practice-based implementation research, yet too often research prioritizes and is most successful in academic settings. During a national implementation trial to evaluate the effectiveness of Collaborative Care for co-occurring opioid use and mental health disorders, we lost three of our 11 participating implementation sites, all representing community sites.

Method

To better understand needed supports for implementation trial participation, we conducted exit interviews (n = 5) with key staff at these community sites. Interview transcripts were double-coded and analyzed using Rapid Assessment Process. Qualitative themes were iteratively reviewed by the study team.

Results

Three themes emerged characterizing challenges for community sites, including that: (1) research threatens sites’ most precious resource—staff; (2) staff lack comfort with and skills for research; and (3) research participation in its current form does not offer a clear return on investment.

Conclusions

Learnings from this work illuminate some of the barriers community sites face when trying to participate in multisite implementation research. An undercurrent of participant perspectives was the belief that community sites like theirs are just not set up to successfully participate in clinical trial research, including population-based implementation trials. Future implementation trials should consider strategies that disrupt traditional approaches, increasing the equitable inclusion of diverse practice settings in implementation research.

Plain Language Summary

There is a growing interest in research that reflects community settings. Yet too often, research is most successful in academic settings. During a national implementation trial to evaluate the effectiveness of Collaborative Care for co-occurring opioid use and mental health disorders, we lost three of our 11 participating implementation sites, all representing community sites. To better understand their perspectives, we conducted exit interviews (n = 5) with staff at these community sites. Interview transcripts were double-coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. Analysis identified three themes: (1) research threatens sites’ most precious resource—staff; (2) staff lack comfort with and skills for research, and (3) research participation in its current form does not offer a clear return on investment. Community sites face many barriers to participating in implementation research trials. Future trials should consider ways to disrupt traditional approaches and increase the equitable inclusion of community settings in implementation research.

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

Authors:

Subscription Required for Full Text Access

Read the full text in the subscription access journal Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text open access in the journal Hepatology Communications

Abstract:

Authors:

✪ Open Access

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

Abstract:

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Authors:

✪ Open Access

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

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

Contributions to the literature

Authors:

✪ Open Access

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

Abstract:

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Contributions to the literature

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract:

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Authors:

✪ Open Access

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

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Findings

Discussion

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal BMC Health Services Research

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Research and Practice

Abstract:

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Plain Language Summary