Dataset Information

Factors affecting adoption, implementation fidelity, and sustainability of the Redesigned Community Health Fund in Tanzania: a mixed methods protocol for process evaluation in the Dodoma region.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite the implementation of various initiatives to address low enrollment in voluntary micro health insurance (MHI) schemes in sub-Saharan Africa, the problem of low enrollment remains unresolved. The lack of process evaluations of such interventions makes it difficult to ascertain whether their poor results are because of design failures or implementation weaknesses.

Objective

In this paper, we describe a process evaluation protocol aimed at opening the 'black box' to evaluate the implementation processes of the Redesigned Community Health Fund (CHF) program in the Dodoma region of Tanzania.

Design

The study employs a cross-sectional mixed methods design and is being carried out 3 years after the launch of the Redesigned CHF program. The study is grounded in a conceptual framework which rests on the Diffusion of Innovation Theory and the Implementation Fidelity Framework. The study utilizes a mixture of quantitative and qualitative data collection tools (questionnaires, focus group discussions, in-depth interviews, and document review), and aligns the evaluation to the Theory of Intervention developed by our team. Quantitative data will be used to measure program adoption, implementation fidelity, and their moderating factors. Qualitative data will be used to explore the responses of stakeholders to the intervention, contextual factors, and moderators of adoption, implementation fidelity, and sustainability.

Discussion

This protocol describes a systematic process evaluation in relation to the implementation of a reformed MHI. We trust that the theoretical approaches and methodologies described in our protocol may be useful to inform the design of future process evaluations focused on the assessment of complex interventions, such as MHI schemes.

SUBMITTER: Kalolo A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4683988 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Implementation of clinical medication reviews in daily practice is scarcely evaluated. The Opti-Med intervention applied a structured approach with external expert teams (pharmacist and physician) to conduct medication reviews. The intervention was effective with respect to resolving drug related problems, but did not improve quality of life. Objective The objective of this process evaluation was to gain more insight into the implementation fidelity of the intervention. Setting Process evaluation alongside a cluster randomized trial in 22 general practices and 518 patients of 65 years and over. Method A mixed methods design using quantitative and qualitative data and the conceptual framework for implementation fidelity was used. Implementation fidelity is defined as the degree to which the various components of an intervention are delivered as intended. Main outcome measure Implementation fidelity for key components of the Opti-Med intervention. Results Patient selection and preparation of the medication analyses were carried out as planned, although mostly by the Opti-Med researchers instead of practice nurses. Medication analyses by expert teams were performed as planned, as well as patient consultations and patient involvement. 48% of the proposed changes in the medication regime were implemented. Cooperation between expert teams members and the use of an online decision-support medication evaluation facilitated implementation. Barriers for implementation were time constraints in daily practice, software difficulties with patient selection and incompleteness of medical files. The degree of embedding of the intervention was found to influence implementation fidelity. The total time investment for healthcare professionals was 94 min per patient. Conclusion Overall, the implementation fidelity was moderate to high for all key components of the Opti-Med intervention. The absence of its effectiveness with respect to quality of life could not be explained by insufficient implementation fidelity.

Project description:Background"We Act" is a health-promoting school intervention comprising an educational, a parental and a school component. The intervention was implemented in 4 Danish public schools with 4 control schools. The objectives were to improve pupils' dietary habits, physical activity, well-being and social capital using the Investigation, Vision, Action & Change (IVAC) health educational methodology. The target group was pupils in grades 5-6. The purpose of this study was to evaluate implementation fidelity and interacting context factors in the intervention schools.MethodsThe Medical Research Council's new guidance for process evaluation was used as a framework. Data were collected concurrently and evenly at the 4 intervention schools through field visits (n?=?43?days), questionnaires (n?=?17 teachers, 52 parents), and interviews (n?=?9 teachers, 4 principals, 52 pupils). The data were analysed separately and via triangulation.ResultsA total of 289 pupils participated, and 22 teachers delivered the educational component in 12 classes. In all schools, the implementation fidelity to the educational methodology was high for the Investigation and Vision phases as the teachers delivered the proposed lessons and activities. However, the implementation fidelity to the Action & Change phase was low, and little change occurred in the schools. The pupils' presentation of their visions did not work as intended as an impact mechanism to prompt actions. The implementation of the parental and the school components was weak. The main context factors influencing implementation fidelity were a poor fit into the school-year plan and weak management support.ConclusionsAlthough 'We Act' was designed to comply with evidence- and theory-based requirements, IVAC and the health-promoting school approach did not result in change. The time dedicated to schools' preparation and competence development may have been too low. This must be considered in future process evaluation research on health-promoting schools and by school health promotion administrators when planning future school interventions.Trial registrationISRCTN85203017.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Understanding the many factors that influence implementation of new programs, in addition to their success or failure, is extraordinarily complex. This qualitative study examines the implementation and adaptation process of two linked clinical programs within Primary Care, diabetes shared medical appointments (SMAs) and a reciprocal Peer-to-Peer (P2P) support program for patients with poorly controlled diabetes, through the lens of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We illustrate the role and importance of pre-implementation interviews for guiding ongoing adaptations to improve implementation of a clinical program, achieve optimal change, and avoid type III errors. METHODS:We conducted 28 semi-structured phone interviews between September of 2013 and May of 2016, four to seven interviewees at each site. The interviewees were physician champions, chiefs of primary care, pharmacists, dieticians, nurses, health psychologists, peer facilitators, and research coordinators. Modifiable barriers and facilitators to implementation were identified and adaptations documented. Data analysis started with immersion in the data to obtain a sense of the whole and then by cataloging principal themes per CFIR constructs. An iterative consensus-building process was used to code. CFIR constructs were then ranked and compared by the researchers. RESULTS:We identified a subset of CFIR constructs that are most likely to play a role in the effectiveness of the diabetes SMAs and P2P program based on our work with the participating sites to date. Through the identification of barriers and facilitators, a subset of CFIR constructs arose, including evidence strength and quality, relative advantage, adaptability, complexity, patient needs and resources, compatibility, leadership engagement, available resources, knowledge and beliefs, and champions. CONCLUSIONS:We described our method for identification of contextual factors that influenced implementation of complex diabetes clinical programs - SMAs and P2P. The qualitative phone interviews aided implementation through the identification of modifiable barriers or conversely, actionable findings. Implementation projects, and certainly clinical programs, do not have unlimited resources and these interviews allowed us to determine which facets to target and act on for each site. As the study progresses, these findings will be compared and correlated to outcome measures. This comprehensive adaptation data collection will also facilitate and enhance understanding of the future success or lack of success of implementation and inform potential for translation and public health impact. The approach of using the CFIR to guide us to actionable findings and help us better understand barriers and facilitators has broad applicability and can be used by other projects to guide, adapt, and improve implementation of research into practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02132676 .

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, many children fail to meet the World Health Organization's physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines. Schools are an ideal setting to intervene, yet despite many interventions in this setting, success when delivered under real-world conditions or at scale is limited. This systematic review aims to i) identify which implementation models are used in school-based physical activity effectiveness, dissemination, and/or implementation trials, and ii) identify factors associated with the adoption, implementation and sustainability of school-based physical activity interventions in real-world settings.MethodsThe review followed PRISMA guidelines and included a systematic search of seven databases from January 1st, 2000 to July 31st, 2018: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and ERIC. A forward citation search of included studies using Google Scholar was performed on the 21st of January 2019 including articles published until the end of 2018. Study inclusion criteria: (i) a primary outcome to increase physical activity and/or decrease sedentary behaviour among school-aged children and/or adolescents; (ii) intervention delivery within school settings, (iii) use of implementation models to plan or interpret study results; and (iv) interventions delivered under real-world conditions.Exclusion criteria(i) efficacy trials; (ii) studies applying or testing school-based physical activity policies, and; (iii) studies targeting special schools or pre-school and/or kindergarten aged children.Results27 papers comprising 17 unique interventions were included. Fourteen implementation models (e.g., RE-AIM, Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations, Precede Proceed model), were applied across 27 papers. Implementation models were mostly used to interpret results (n?=?9), for planning evaluation and interpreting results (n?=?8), for planning evaluation (n?=?6), for intervention design (n?=?4), or for a combination of designing the intervention and interpreting results (n?=?3). We identified 269 factors related to barriers (n?=?93) and facilitators (n?=?176) for the adoption (n?=?7 studies), implementation (n?=?14 studies) and sustainability (n =?7 studies) of interventions.ConclusionsImplementation model use was predominately centered on the interpretation of results and analyses, with few examples of use across all study phases as a planning tool and to understand results. This lack of implementation models applied may explain the limited success of interventions when delivered under real-world conditions or at scale.Trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42018099836).

Project description:BackgroundInstilling healthy dietary habits and active play in early childhood is an important public health focus. Interventions supporting the establishment of nutrition and active play behaviours in the first years of life have shown positive outcomes and long-term cost-effectiveness, however, most are research trials, with limited evidence regarding real-world application. Implementation science theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) can guide the process of research translation from trial to real-world intervention. The application of TMFs within nutrition and active play intervention studies in early childhood (< 5 years) is currently unknown. This systematic review identified the use of TMFs and barriers/ enablers associated with intervention adoption, implementation, and sustainability in early childhood nutrition and active play interventions implemented under real-world conditions.MethodsSix databases were searched for peer-reviewed publications between 2000-2021. Studies were included if primary outcomes reported improvement in diet, physical activity or sedentary behaviours amongst children aged < 5 years and interventions were delivered under real-world conditions within a community and/or healthcare setting. Two reviewers extracted and evaluated studies, cross checked by a third and verified by all authors. Quality assessment of included studies was completed by two authors using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).ResultsEleven studies comprising eleven unique interventions were included. Studies represented low, middle and high-income countries, and were conducted across a range of settings. Five TMFs were identified representing four of Nilsen's implementation model categories, predominantly 'evaluation models'. Ninety-nine barriers/facilitators were extracted across the three intervention phases-Implementation (n = 33 barriers; 33 facilitators), Sustainability (n = 19 barriers; n = 9 facilitators), Adoption (n = 2 barriers; n = 3 facilitators). Identified barriers/facilitators were mapped to the five domains of the Durlak and DuPre framework, with 'funding', 'compatibility' and 'integration of new programming' common across the three intervention phases.ConclusionsFindings demonstrate that there is no systematic application of TMFs in the planning, implementation and/or evaluation of early childhood nutrition and active play interventions in real-world settings, and selective and sporadic application of TMFs occurs across the intervention lifespan. This apparent limited uptake of TMFs is a missed opportunity to enhance real-world implementation success.Trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42021243841).

Project description:BackgroundOpioid addiction and overdose is a public health problem in the United States and is expected to remain with substance use increasing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Communities that approach this issue through multi-sector partnerships experience more positive health outcomes. Understanding motivation for stakeholder engagement in these efforts is essential to successful adoption, implementation, and sustainability particularly in the shifting landscape of needs and resources.MethodsA formative evaluation was conducted on the C.L.E.A.R. Program in Massachusetts, a state heavily impacted by the opioid epidemic. A stakeholder power analysis identified appropriate stakeholders for the study (n = 9). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided data collection and analysis. Surveys (n = 8) examined perception and attitudes on the program; motivations and communication for engagement; and, benefits and barriers to collaboration. Stakeholder interviews (n = 6) explored the quantitative findings in more detail. Surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a content analysis with deductive approach was conducted for stakeholder interviews. The Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory guided recommendations for communications to engage stakeholders.ResultsAgencies represented a range of sectors and the majority (n = 5) were familiar with the C.L.E.A.R.ProgramDespite the many strengths of the program and existing collaboration, based on the coding densities of each CFIR construct stakeholders identified crucial gaps in the services the program provided and noted that the overall infrastructure of the program could be enhanced. Opportunities for strategic communication to address the stages of DOI align with the gaps identified in the CFIR domains to result in increased agency collaboration and expansion of services into the surrounding communities to ensure sustainability of the C.L.E.A.R.ProgramConclusionsThis study explored factors necessary for ongoing multi-sector collaboration and sustainability of an existing community-based program especially given the changing context from COVID-19. Findings informed both program revisions and communication strategies to promote the program to new and existing collaborating agencies and the community served, and identify effective communication approaches across sectors. This is essential for successful implementation and sustainability of the program, especially as it is adapted and expanded to address post-pandemic times.Trial registrationThis study does not report results of a health care intervention on human participants, however it was reviewed and determined an exempt study with the Boston University Institutional Review Board (IRB #H-42107).

Project description:AimOur aim was to evaluate the implementation process of a comprehensive cardiovascular disease prevention program in general practice, to enhance understanding of influencing factors to implementation success and sustainability, and to learn how to overcome barriers.BackgroundCardiovascular disease and its risk factors are the world's leading cause of mortality, yet can be prevented by addressing unhealthy lifestyle behavior. Nevertheless, the transition toward a prevention-oriented primary health care remains limited. A better understanding of factors facilitating or hindering implementation success and sustainability of prevention programs, and how barriers may be addressed, is needed. This work is part of Horizon 2020 project 'SPICES', which aims to implement validated preventive interventions in vulnerable populations.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative process evaluation with participatory action research approach of implementation in five general practices. Data were collected through 38 semi-structured individual and small group interviews with seven physicians, 11 nurses, one manager and one nursing assistant, conducted before, during, and after the implementation period. We applied adaptive framework analysis guided by RE-AIM Qualitative Evaluation for Systematic Translation (RE-AIM QuEST) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).FindingsMultiple facilitators and barriers affected reach of vulnerable target populations: adoption by primary health care providers, implementation and fidelity and intention to maintain the program into routine practice. In addition, our study revealed concrete actions, linked to implementation strategies, that can be undertaken to address identified barriers. Prioritization of prevention in general practice vision, ownership, and shared responsibility of all team members, compatibility with existing work processes and systems, expanding nurse's roles and upskilling competence profiles, supportive financial and regulatory frameworks, and a strong community - health care link are crucial to increase implementation success and long-term maintenance of prevention programs. COVID-19 was a major barrier to the implementation. RE-AIM QuEST, CFIR, and participatory strategies are useful to guide implementation of prevention programs in primary health care.

Project description:BackgroundAn application-oriented implementation framework designed for clinicians and based on the Diffusion of Innovations theory included 81 implementation strategies with suggested timing for use within four implementation phases. The purpose of this research was to evaluate and strengthen the framework for clinician use and propose its usefulness in implementation research.MethodsA multi-step, iterative approach guided framework revisions. Individuals requesting the use of the framework over the previous 7 years were sent an electronic questionnaire. Evaluation captured framework usability, generalizability, accuracy, and implementation phases for each strategy. Next, nurse leaders who use the framework pile sorted strategies for cultural domain analysis. Last, a panel of five EBP/implementation experts used these data and built consensus to strengthen the framework.ResultsParticipants (n = 127/1578; 8% response) were predominately nurses (94%), highly educated (94% Master's or higher), and from across healthcare (52% hospital/system, 31% academia, and 7% community) in the USA (84%). Most (96%) reported at least some experience using the framework and 88% would use the framework again. A 4-point scale (1 = not/disagree to 4 = very/agree) was used. The framework was deemed useful (92%, rating 3-4), easy to use (72%), intuitive (67%), generalizable (100%), flexible and adaptive (100%), with accurate phases (96%), and accurate targets (100%). Participants (n = 51) identified implementation strategy timing within four phases (Cochran's Q); 54 of 81 strategies (66.7%, p < 0.05) were significantly linked to a specific phase; of these, 30 (55.6%) matched the original framework. Next, nurse leaders (n = 23) completed a pile sorting activity. Anthropac software was used to analyze the data and visualize it as a domain map and hierarchical clusters with 10 domains. Lastly, experts used these data and implementation science to refine and specify each of the 75 strategies, identifying phase, domain, actors, and function. Strategy usability, timing, and groupings were used to refine the framework.ConclusionThe Iowa Implementation for Sustainability Framework offers a typology to guide implementation for evidence-based healthcare. This study specifies 75 implementation strategies within four phases and 10 domains and begins to validate the framework. Standard use of strategy names is foundational to compare and understand when implementation strategies are effective, in what dose, for which topics, by whom, and in what context.