A systematic exploration of differences in contextual factors related to implementing the MOVE! weight management program in VA: a mixed methods study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
In January 2006, Veterans Affairs (VA) disseminated the MOVE!® Weight Management Program to VA medical centers to address the high prevalence of overweight/obesity. In its second year, MOVE! implementation varied widely across facilities. The objective of this study was to understand contextual factors that facilitated or impeded implementation of MOVE! in VA medical centers in the second year after its dissemination.Methods
We used an embedded mixed methods cross-sectional study design. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected simultaneously with the primary purpose to explore contextual factors most likely to influence MOVE! implementation effectiveness at five purposively selected facilities. Facilities were selected to maximize variation with respect to participation in MOVE! by candidate Veterans. Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with 24 staff across the five facilities. Quantitative responses were elicited followed by open-ended questions. The quantitative measures were adapted from a published implementation model. Qualitative analysis was conducted using rigorous content analysis methods.Results
Qualitative and quantitative data converged to strengthen findings that point to several recommendations. Management support can help increase visibility of the program, commit needed resources, and communicate the importance of implementation efforts. Establishing a receptive implementation climate can be accomplished by emphasizing the important role that weight management may have in reducing incidence and severity of obesity-related chronic conditions. Coalescing highly functioning multi-disciplinary teams was an essential step for more effective implementation of MOVE!. In some situations, local champions can overcome challenging barriers in facilities that lack sufficient management support.Conclusions
Key organizational factors at local VA medical centers were strongly associated with MOVE! implementation. Results pointed to recommendations that can help accelerate large-scale dissemination of complex weight management programs.
SUBMITTER: Damschroder LJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3206421 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A systematic exploration of differences in contextual factors related to implementing the MOVE! weight management program in VA: a mixed methods study.
Damschroder Laura J LJ Goodrich David E DE Robinson Claire H CH Fletcher Carol E CE Lowery Julie C JC
BMC health services research 20110930
<h4>Background</h4>In January 2006, Veterans Affairs (VA) disseminated the MOVE!® Weight Management Program to VA medical centers to address the high prevalence of overweight/obesity. In its second year, MOVE! implementation varied widely across facilities. The objective of this study was to understand contextual factors that facilitated or impeded implementation of MOVE! in VA medical centers in the second year after its dissemination.<h4>Methods</h4>We used an embedded mixed methods cross-sect ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeVeterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) lose less weight in the Veterans Affairs (VA) weight management program (MOVE!), so we developed MOVE!+UP.DesignSingle-arm pre-post pilot to iteratively develop MOVE!+UP (2015-2018).SettingVeterans Affairs Medical Center.ParticipantsOverweight Veterans with PTSD (5 cohorts of n = 5-11 [N = 44]; n = 39 received ≥1 MOVE+UP session, with cohorts 1-4 [n = 31] = "Development" and cohort 5 [n = 8] = "Final" MOVE!+UP).InterventionMOVE!+UP weight management for Veterans with PTSD modified after each cohort. Final MOVE!+UP was coled by a licensed clinical psychologist and Veteran peer counselor in 16 two-hour in-person group sessions and 2 individual dietician visits. Sessions included general weight loss support (eg, behavioral monitoring with facilitator feedback, weekly weighing), cognitive-behavioral skills to address PTSD-specific barriers, and a 30-minute walk to a nearby park.MeasuresTo inform post-cohort modifications, we assessed weight, PTSD, and treatment targets (eg, physical activity, diet), and conducted qualitative interviews.AnalysisBaseline to 16-week paired t tests and template analysis.ResultsDevelopment cohorts suggested improvements (eg, additional sessions and weight loss information, professional involvement) and did not lose weight (mean [M] = 1.8 lbs (standard deviation [SD] = 8.2); P = .29. Conversely, the final cohort reported high satisfaction and showed meaningful weight (M = -14 pounds [SD = 3.7] and 71% lost ≥5% baseline weight) and PTSD (M = -17.9 [SD = 12.2]) improvements, P < .05.ConclusionsThe comprehensive, 16-week, in-person, cofacilitated Final MOVE!+UP was acceptable and may improve the health of people with PTSD. Iterative development likely produced a patient-centered intervention, needing further testing.
| S-EPMC7478932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The program "Implementing Goals of Care Conversations with Veterans in VA LTC Settings" is proposed in partnership with the US Veterans Health Administration (VA) National Center for Ethics in Health Care and the Geriatrics and Extended Care Program Offices, together with the VA Office of Nursing Services. The three projects in this program are designed to support a new system-wide mandate requiring providers to conduct and systematically record conversations with veterans about their preferences for care, particularly life-sustaining treatments. These treatments include cardiac resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and other forms of life support. However, veteran preferences for care go beyond whether or not they receive life-sustaining treatments to include issues such as whether or not they want to be hospitalized if they are acutely ill, and what kinds of comfort care they would like to receive.Three projects, all focused on improving the provision of veteran-centered care, are proposed. The projects will be conducted in Community Living Centers (VA-owned nursing homes) and VA Home-Based Primary Care programs in five regional networks in the Veterans Health Administration. In all the projects, we will use data from context and barrier and facilitator assessments to design feedback reports for staff to help them understand how well they are meeting the requirement to have conversations with veterans about their preferences and to document them appropriately. We will also use learning collaboratives-meetings in which staff teams come together and problem-solve issues they encounter in how to get veterans' preferences expressed and documented, and acted on-to support action planning to improve performance.We will use data over time to track implementation success, measured as the proportions of veterans in Community Living Centers (CLCs) and Home-Based Primary Care (HBPC) who have a documented goals of care conversation soon after admission. We will work with our operational partners to spread approaches that work throughout the Veterans Health Administration.
| S-EPMC5041212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Technology-based self-assessment (TB-SA) benefits patients and providers and has shown feasibility, ease of use, efficiency, and cost savings. A promising TB-SA, the VA eScreening program, has shown promise for the efficient and effective collection of mental and physical health information. To assist adoption of eScreening by healthcare providers, we assessed technology-related as well as individual- and system-level factors that might influence the implementation of eScreening in four diverse VA clinics. METHODS:This was a mixed-method, pre-post, quasi-experimental study originally designed as a quality improvement project. The clinics were selected to represent a range of environments that could potentially benefit from TB-SA and that made use of the variety eScreening functions. Because of limited resources, the implementation strategy consisted of staff education, training, and technical support as needed. Data was collected using pre- and post-implementation interviews or focus groups of leadership and clinical staff, eScreening usage data, and post-implementation surveys. Data was gathered on: 1) usability of eScreening; 2) knowledge about and acceptability and 3) facilitators and barriers to the successful implementation of eScreening. RESULTS:Overall, staff feedback about eScreening was positive. Knowledge about eScreening ranged widely between the clinics. Nearly all staff felt eScreening would fit well into their clinical setting at pre-implementation; however some felt it was a poor fit with emergent cases and older adults at post-implementation. Lack of adequate personnel support and perceived leadership support were barriers to implementation. Adequate training and technical assistance were cited as important facilitators. One clinic fully implemented eScreening, two partially implemented, and one clinic did not implement eScreening as part of normal practice after 6 months as measured by usage data and self-report. Organizational engagement survey scores were higher among clinics with full or partial implementation and low in the clinic that did not implement. CONCLUSIONS:Despite some added work load for some staff and perceived lack of leadership support, eScreening was at least partially implemented in three clinics. The technology itself posed no barriers in any of the settings. An implementation strategy that accounts for increased work burden and includes accountability may help in future eScreening implementation efforts. Note. This abstract was previously published (e.g., Annals of Behavioral Medicine 53: S1-S842, 2019).
| S-EPMC6712612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe burden of obesity is high among US veterans, yet many face barriers to engaging in in-person, facility-based treatment programs. To improve access to weight-management services, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed TeleMOVE, a home-based, 82-day curriculum that utilizes in-home messaging devices to promote weight loss in VHA patients facing barriers to accessing facility-based services.ObjectiveThe primary aim was to establish preliminary evidence for the program by comparing outcomes for TeleMOVE with standard, facility-based MOVE weight-management services (group, individual modalities) over the evaluation period based on the number of patients enrolled per site and the program's clinical effectiveness, as demonstrated by average weight lost per patient. The secondary aim was to understand factors influencing TeleMOVE implementation variability across demonstration sites to develop recommendations to improve national program dissemination.MethodsWe employed a formative mixed-methods design to evaluate the phased implementation of TeleMOVE at 9 demonstration sites and compare patient- and site-level measures of program uptake. Data were collected between October 1, 2009 and September 30, 2011. Patient-level program outcomes were extracted from VHA patient care databases to evaluate program enrollment rates and clinical outcomes. To assess preliminary clinical effectiveness, weight loss outcomes for veterans who enrolled in TeleMOVE were compared with outcomes for veterans enrolled in standard MOVE! at each demonstration site, as well as with national averages during the first 2 years of program implementation. For the secondary aim, we invited program stakeholders to participate in 2 rounds of semistructured interviews about aspects of TeleMOVE implementation processes, site-level contextual factors, and program delivery. Twenty-eight stakeholders participated in audio-recorded interviews.ResultsAlthough stakeholders at 3 sites declined to be interviewed, objective program uptake was high at 2 sites, delayed-high at 2 sites, and low at 5 sites. At 6 months post enrollment, the mean weight loss was comparable for TeleMOVE (n=417) and MOVE! (n=1543) participants at -5.2 lb (SD 14.4) and -5.1 lb (SD 12.2), respectively (P=.91). All sites reported high program complexity because TeleMOVE required more staff time per participant than MOVE! due to logistical and technical assistance issues related to the devices. High-uptake sites overcame implementation challenges by leveraging communication networks with stakeholders, adapting the program to patient needs whenever possible, setting programmatic goals and monitoring feedback of results, and taking time to reflect and evaluate on delivery to foster incremental delivery improvements, whereas low-uptake sites reported less leadership support and effective communication among stakeholders.ConclusionsThis implementation evaluation of a clinical telehealth program demonstrated the value of partnership-based research in which researchers not only provided operational leaders with feedback regarding the effectiveness of a new program but also relevant feedback into contextual factors related to program implementation to enable adaptations for national deployment efforts.
| S-EPMC6307696 | biostudies-literature
Project description:UnlabelledOver one-third of patients treated in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) are obese. VHA introduced the MOVE! Weight Management Program for Veterans in 2006 to provide comprehensive weight management services. An evolving, periodic evaluation using the RE-AIM framework (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) has been conducted to gauge success and opportunities for improvement. Key metrics were identified in each RE-AIM dimension. Data were compiled over fiscal years (FY) 2006 through 2010 from a variety of sources including VHA administrative and clinical databases, electronic medical record reviews, and an annual, structured VHA facility self-report. REACH: Screening for obesity and offering weight management treatment to eligible patients increased from 66% to 95% over the past 3 years. MOVE! is currently provided at every VHA hospital facility and at over one-half of VHA community-based outpatient clinics. The percent of eligible patients who participate in at least one weight management visit has doubled since implementation began but has stabilized at 10 to 12%.EffectivenessAbout 18.6% of the 31,854 patients with available weight data who participated in at least two treatment visits between Jul 1, 2008 and Sep 30, 2009 had at least a 5% body weight loss by 6 months as did almost one-third of those who participated in more intense and sustained treatment. By contrast, only 12.5% of a comparison group of patients matched on age, gender, body mass index (BMI) class, and comorbidity status who were not treated with MOVE! had at least a 5% body weight loss. ADOPTION: The median full-time staff equivalent providing weight management services at each facility has increased over time and was 1.76 in FY 2010.ImplementationStaff from multiple disciplines typically provide MOVE!-related care although not all disciplines are involved with providing care at every facility. Group-based treatment has become increasingly utilized, and in FY 2010 it represented 72% of all MOVE!-related visits. Intensity of treatment has increased from an average of 3.6 visits per patient per year in FY 2007 to 4.6 in FY 2010, but more than half of patients have two visits or less. Almost all facilities now report the consistent use of key evidence-based behavioral strategies with patients. MAINTENANCE: While participation in MOVE! by patients continues to grow each year, facility self-reported program staffing and space/equipment challenges are potential barriers to long-term program maintenance. Evidence-based weight management treatment can be delivered at VHA medical centers and community-based outpatient clinics, but the REACH remains limited after several years of implementation. Intense and sustained treatment with MOVE! results in a modest positive impact on short-term weight loss outcomes, but a relatively small proportion of patients engage in this level of care. Increasing reach, improving effectiveness of care, and keeping patients engaged in treatment are areas for future policy, practice, and research.
| S-EPMC3717682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patient education is key to preventing hospital falls yet is inconsistently implemented by health professionals. A mixed methods study was conducted involving a ward-based evaluation of patients receiving education from health professionals using a scripted conversation guide with a falls prevention brochure, followed by semi-structured qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of health professionals involved in delivering the intervention. Over five weeks, 37 patients consented to surveys (intervention n = 27; control n = 10). The quantitative evaluation showed that falls prevention education was not systematically implemented in the trial ward. Seven individual interviews were conducted with health professionals to understand the reasons why implementation failed. Perceived barriers included time constraints, limited interprofessional collaboration, and a lack of staff input into designing the research project and patient interventions. Perceived enablers included support from senior staff, consistent reinforcement of falls education by health professionals, and fostering patient empowerment and engagement. Recommended strategies to enhance implementation included ensuring processes were in place supporting health professional accountability, the inclusion of stakeholder input in designing the falls intervention and implementation processes, as well as leadership engagement in falls prevention education. Although health professionals play a key role in delivering evidence-based falls prevention education in hospitals, implementation can be compromised by staff capacity, capability, and opportunities for co-design with patients and researchers. Organisational buy-in to practice change facilitates the implementation of evidence-based falls prevention activities.
| S-EPMC9316918 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Addressing malnutrition is one of the key components of HIV care among people living with HIV. Since 2010, a nutritional program has been implemented to address malnutrition amongst HIV patients in Ethiopia, with patients enrolled in the program for 3 months (for mild acute malnutrition) and 6 months (for severe acute malnutrition). However, utilisation and effectiveness of the nutritional programs remain unexplored. This study aimed to examine individual level determinants and contextual factors influencing the effectiveness of the nutritional program in the Tigray region of Ethiopia. METHODS AND SETTING:The study employed a mixed-methods approach involving quantitative and qualitative research methods. In the quantitative phase of the study, records from 1757 adult patients, including socio-demographic characteristics, clinical and nutritional program outcomes were retrieved from three selected hospitals in the Tigray region, Ethiopia. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the individual demographic and socioeconomic, clinical and immunological, and anthropometric and nutritional determinants of nutritional outcomes. The qualitative study included 33 individual interviews with adult patients, health providers, and program managers. Interview data were analysed using a framework analysis approach. RESULTS:Amongst study participants, 55.3% (95% CI = 53.2?57.4) recovered from malnutrition, 19% (95% CI, 17.3?20.7) did not complete the program, and 21% (95% CI = 19.7?23.4) completed the program but failed to recover from malnutrition. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, those who were: living in urban areas (AOR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.05?1.97), employed (AOR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.01?1.93), attending Shul (AOR = 4.6, 95% CI = 3.15?6.71) and Lemlem Karl (AOR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.69?3.71) hospitals, in clinical stages II (AOR = 2.49, 95% CI = 1.59?3.91) and III (AOR = 1.46(1.02?2.07), on ART for less than six months (AOR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.09?2.39), anaemic (AOR = 1.77, 95% = 1.29?2.41), and diagnosed with severe acute malnutrition at enrolment (AOR = 6.43, 95% CI = 4.69?8.3); were less likely to complete the program. Results for those who completed the program indicated that urban residence, (AOR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.4?2.91), attending Shul (AOR = 2.92, 95% CI = 2.04?4.19) and Lemlem Karl (AOR = 1.49, 95% CI 1.05?2.11) hospitals, having bedridden functional status (AOR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.15?0.83), advanced WHO clinical stage (WHO clinical stage IV) (AOR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.28?0.98) and severe malnutrition at enrolment (AOR = 4.25, 95% CI = 3.02?5.98)) predicted non-response to the nutritional program. Qualitative interviews revealed that the taste and perceived side effects of the nutritional supplement provided as part of the nutritional program, sharing/selling practices, religious and sociocultural issues, distance and poor access to the health services were barriers to program utilisation. Nutritional counselling and health service-related factors such as a previous enrolment in the program and positive experience in the health service were enablers of program utilisation. CONCLUSION:There was a clear nexus between contextual factors such as distance, quality of health service and sociocultural factors, and individual patient characteristics with the effectiveness of the nutritional program. Taking individual and contextual factors into consideration in program design, planning and implementation is essential if the nutritional program in HIV care services is to achieve its goal in addressing malnutrition amongst people living with HIV.
| S-EPMC7185904 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIdentifying feasible and effective implementation strategies that are contextually appropriate is a challenge for researchers and implementers, exacerbated by the lack of conceptual clarity surrounding terms and definitions for implementation strategies, as well as a literature that provides imperfect guidance regarding how one might select strategies for a given healthcare quality improvement effort. In this study, we will engage an Expert Panel comprising implementation scientists and mental health clinical managers to: establish consensus on a common nomenclature for implementation strategy terms, definitions and categories; and develop recommendations to enhance the match between implementation strategies selected to facilitate the use of evidence-based programs and the context of certain service settings, in this case the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mental health services.Methods/designThis study will use purposive sampling to recruit an Expert Panel comprising implementation science experts and VA mental health clinical managers. A novel, four-stage sequential mixed methods design will be employed. During Stage 1, the Expert Panel will participate in a modified Delphi process in which a published taxonomy of implementation strategies will be used to establish consensus on terms and definitions for implementation strategies. In Stage 2, the panelists will complete a concept mapping task, which will yield conceptually distinct categories of implementation strategies as well as ratings of the feasibility and effectiveness of each strategy. Utilizing the common nomenclature developed in Stages 1 and 2, panelists will complete an innovative menu-based choice task in Stage 3 that involves matching implementation strategies to hypothetical implementation scenarios with varying contexts. This allows for quantitative characterizations of the relative necessity of each implementation strategy for a given scenario. In Stage 4, a live web-based facilitated expert recommendation process will be employed to establish expert recommendations about which implementations strategies are essential for each phase of implementation in each scenario.DiscussionUsing a novel method of selecting implementation strategies for use within specific contexts, this study contributes to our understanding of implementation science and practice by sharpening conceptual distinctions among a comprehensive collection of implementation strategies.
| S-EPMC3987065 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 2009 health insurers AOK and Bosch BKK introduced the "FacharztProgramm Kardiologie" - a program for coordinated ambulatory cardiology care in the German state of Baden-Württemberg. It aims for efficient, medical guideline-oriented cardiology care to reduce avoidable hospitalizations as well as costs of care. A high number of cardiologists participate and the program has served as blueprint for programs in other medical fields. With many prerequisites and conditions involved, its implementation cannot be expected to be self-directed. Still, only little data on the actual implementation exists. We aimed to determine to what extent medical specialists and cooperating general practitioners implemented the program, which components they adapted, and which contextual factors they deemed relevant.MethodsWe collected data from primary care practices of medical specialists and general practitioners within Baden-Württemberg. Qualitative data was obtained through structured telephone interviews with participating and non-participating medical specialists as well as general practitioners cooperating with the program and general practitioners not cooperating. Interviews were analyzed through content-structuring qualitative content analyses via MAXQDA. Quantitative data was obtained using anonymous written questionnaires completed by participating and non-participating medical specialists as well as general practitioners cooperating with the program. Analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics, mainly with regard to differences within and between groups of physicians.ResultsMost components of the program regarding medical care were well implemented. However, access to medical care was not completely as intended due to high numbers of patients participating in the program and prioritization by physicians. Procedures for communication and cooperation between medical specialists and general practitioners were only partially adhered to and standardized communication was not implemented. A range of regional and practice-related contextual factors influenced implementation and outcomes.ConclusionsImplementation of this program was mixed. Contextual factors posed individual challenges to participating physicians which can't be captured by an encompassing program. Both control mechanisms and tailoring of the program to medical care seem needed.Trial registrationThough not a clinical study, we deemed registration appropriate to ensure transparency. The study has been registered as a non-interventional observation study at the German Clinical Trials Register under ID: DRKS00013070.
| S-EPMC6921457 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prevention and rehabilitation of hearing loss and tinnitus, the two most commonly awarded service-connected disabilities, are high priority initiatives in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). At least 4,000 Veterans, most with significant hearing loss, will receive cisplatin this year, with more than half sustaining permanent hearing shift and nearly 40% developing new tinnitus. With improved survivability following cancer treatment, Veterans treated with cisplatin are approached with the dual goals of effective treatment and preserved quality of life. This article describes COMP-VA, a comprehensive ototoxicity monitoring program developed for VA patients receiving cisplatin. The program includes an individualized pretreatment prediction model that identifies the likelihood of hearing shift given cisplatin dose and patient factors. It supports both manual and automated hearing testing with a newly developed portable audiometer capable of performing the recommended procedures on the chemotherapy unit during treatment. It also includes objective methods for identifying outer hair cell changes and predicting audiogram changes using distortion-product otoacoustic emissions. We describe this program of evidence-based ototoxicity monitoring protocols using a case example to give the reader an understanding of how this program would be applied, along with a plan for future work to accomplish the final stages of program development.
| S-EPMC4635678 | biostudies-literature