Reporting on the Strategies Needed to Implement Proven Interventions: An Example From a "Real-World" Cross-Setting Implementation Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gold R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4975638 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Reporting on the Strategies Needed to Implement Proven Interventions: An Example From a "Real-World" Cross-Setting Implementation Study.
Gold Rachel R Bunce Arwen E AE Cohen Deborah J DJ Hollombe Celine C Nelson Christine A CA Proctor Enola K EK Pope Jill A JA DeVoe Jennifer E JE
Mayo Clinic proceedings 20160423 8
<h4>Unlabelled</h4>The objective of this study was to empirically demonstrate the use of a new framework for describing the strategies used to implement quality improvement interventions and provide an example that others may follow. Implementation strategies are the specific approaches, methods, structures, and resources used to introduce and encourage uptake of a given intervention's components. Such strategies have not been regularly reported in descriptions of interventions' effectiveness, o ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:In an effort to accelerate progress towards achieving Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 4 and 5, provision of essential reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health (RMNCH) interventions is being considered. Not only should a state-of-the-art approach be taken for services delivered to the mother, neonate and to the child, but services must also be deployed across the household to hospital continuum of care approach and in the form of packages. The paper proposed several packages for improved maternal, newborn and child health that can be delivered across RMNCH continuum of care. These packages include: supportive care package for women to promote awareness related to healthy pre-pregnancy and pregnancy interventions; nutritional support package for mother to improve supplementation of essential nutrients and micronutrients; antenatal care package to detect, treat and manage infectious and noninfectious diseases and promote immunization; high risk care package to manage preeclampsia and eclampsia in pregnancy; childbirth package to promote support during labor and importance of skilled birth attendance during labor; essential newborn care package to support healthy newborn care practices; and child health care package to prevent and manage infections. This paper further discussed the implementation strategies for employing these interventions at scale.
| S-EPMC4145859 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background/objectiveAlthough most research universities offer investigators help in obtaining patents for inventions, investigators generally have few resources for scaling up non-patentable innovations, such as health behavior change interventions. In 2017, the dissemination and implementation (D & I) team at the University of Wisconsin's Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) created the Evidence-to-Implementation (E2I) award to encourage the scale-up of proven, non-patentable health interventions. The award was intended to give investigators financial support and business expertise to prepare evidence-based interventions for scale-up.MethodsThe D & I team adapted a set of criteria named Critical Factors Assessment, which has proven effective in predicting the success of entrepreneurial ventures outside the health care environment, to use as review criteria for the program. In March 2018 and February 2020, multidisciplinary panels assessed proposals using a review process loosely based on the one used by the NIH for grant proposals, replacing the traditional NIH scoring criteria with the eight predictive factors included in Critical Factors Assessment.Resultstwo applications in 2018 and three applications in 2020 earned awards. Funding has ended for the first two awardees, and both innovations have advanced successfully.ConclusionLate-stage translation, though often overlooked by the academic community, is essential to maximizing the overall impact of the science generated by CTSAs. The Evidence-to-implementation award provides a working model for supporting late-stage translation within a CTSA environment.
| S-EPMC8427544 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Implementation strategies used to enhance the implementation of interventions during efficacy and effectiveness studies are rarely reported. Tracking and reporting implementation strategies during these phases has potential to improve future research studies and real-world implementation. We present an exemplar of how this might be executed by specifying and reporting the implementation strategies that were used during a school-based efficacy trial, Project POWER, which tested a trauma-informed prevention program delivered by a university research team, community members, and school staff facilitators in 29 schools. Methods: Following the conclusion of the 4-year trial, core Project POWER research team members identified the implementation strategies that supported intervention delivery during the trial using an established taxonomy of school-based implementation strategies. The actors, actions, action targets, temporality, dose, and implementation outcomes were specified using established implementation strategies reporting guidelines. Results: The research team identified 37 implementation strategies that were used during the Project POWER trial. Most strategies fell within the categories of Train and Educate Stakeholders, Use Evaluative and Iterative Strategies, and Develop Stakeholder Interrelationships. Actors included members of the research team and partner schools. Strategies were used multiple times during the preparation and implementation phases. Action targets were most often characteristics of individuals, implementation process, and characteristics of the inner setting. Strategies predominantly targeted the implementation outcomes of fidelity, acceptability, feasibility, and adoption. Conclusions: This study provided evidence that implementation strategies are used and can be identified in efficacy research using a retrospective approach. Identifying and specifying implementation strategies used during the initial phases of the translational research pipeline can inform the implementation strategies that are carried forward, adapted, or discontinued in future trials and routine practice to improve implementation and effectiveness outcomes. Plain Language Abstract Intervention development and testing often occurs separately from implementation planning. However, evaluating an intervention without considering how it will be subsequently used in real-world settings is a major factor contributing to the research-to-practice gap. During the rigorous testing of interventions, research teams invest significant effort and resources to ensure their program is delivered as intended and so that beneficial outcomes can be assessed. However, the methods or techniques used to support implementation (i.e., implementation strategies) are often not measured or specified to be used and evaluated during later research or included with intervention materials that are distributed to stakeholders; this is a missed opportunity. This study identifies and describes the implementation strategies used during a large school-based research trial of a universal trauma-informed prevention program delivered by a university research team, community members, and school staff. In collaboration with the trial’s research team, we identified 37 implementation strategies that were used during the trial and defined how each strategy was used, including: the actions (i.e., things done), people who carried out the strategies, the targets of the actions, when and how often during the implementation process the strategies were used, and which implementation outcome(s) the strategy was expected to impact. Explicating implementation strategies during early phases of intervention research in schools can inform which implementation supports to carry forward, adapt, or discontinue in future studies and routine practice.
| S-EPMC8577529 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The use of implementation strategies is an active and purposive approach to translate research findings into routine clinical care. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) identified and defined discrete implementation strategies, and Proctor and colleagues have made recommendations for specifying operationalization of each strategy. We use empirical data to test how the ERIC taxonomy applies to a large dissemination and implementation initiative aimed at taking cardiac prevention to scale in primary care practice. METHODS:EvidenceNOW is an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality initiative that funded seven cooperatives across seven regions in the USA. Cooperatives implemented multi-component interventions to improve heart health and build quality improvement capacity, and used a range of implementation strategies to foster practice change. We used ERIC to identify cooperatives' implementation strategies and specified the actor, action, target, dose, temporality, justification, and expected outcome for each. We mapped and compiled a matrix of the specified ERIC strategies across the cooperatives, and used consensus to resolve mapping differences. We then grouped implementation strategies by outcomes and justifications, which led to insights regarding the use of and linkages between ERIC strategies in real-world scale-up efforts. RESULTS:Thirty-three ERIC strategies were used by cooperatives. We identified a range of revisions to the ERIC taxonomy to improve the practical application of these strategies. These proposed changes include revisions to four strategy names and 12 definitions. We suggest adding three new strategies because they encapsulate distinct actions that were not described in the existing ERIC taxonomy. In addition, we organized ERIC implementation strategies into four functional groupings based on the way we observed them being applied in practice. These groupings show how ERIC strategies are, out of necessity, interconnected, to achieve the work involved in rapidly taking evidence to scale. CONCLUSIONS:Findings of our work suggest revisions to the ERIC implementation strategies to reflect their utilization in real-work dissemination and implementation efforts. The functional groupings of the ERIC implementation strategies that emerged from on-the-ground implementers will help guide others in choosing among and linking multiple implementation strategies when planning small- and large-scale implementation efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registered as Observational Study at www.clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02560428 ).
| S-EPMC6429753 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite long-standing calls to disseminate evidence-based treatments for generalized anxiety (GAD), modest progress has been made in the study of how such treatments should be implemented. The primary objective of this study was to test three competing strategies on how to implement a cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT) for out-patients with GAD (i.e., comparison of one compensation vs. two capitalization models).For our three-arm, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial (implementation of CBT for GAD [IMPLEMENT]), we recruited adults with GAD using advertisements in high-circulation newspapers to participate in a 14-session cognitive behavioral treatment (Mastery of your Anxiety and Worry, MAW-packet). We randomly assigned eligible patients using a full randomization procedure (1:1:1) to three different conditions of implementation: adherence priming (compensation model), which had a systematized focus on patients' individual GAD symptoms and how to compensate for these symptoms within the MAW-packet, and resource priming and supportive resource priming (capitalization model), which had systematized focuses on patients' strengths and abilities and how these strengths can be capitalized within the same packet. In the intention-to-treat population an outcome composite of primary and secondary symptoms-related self-report questionnaires was analyzed based on a hierarchical linear growth model from intake to 6-month follow-up assessment. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02039193) and is closed to new participants.From June 2012 to Nov. 2014, from 411 participants that were screened, 57 eligible participants were recruited and randomly assigned to three conditions. Forty-nine patients (86%) provided outcome data at post-assessment (14% dropout rate). All three conditions showed a highly significant reduction of symptoms over time. However, compared with the adherence priming condition, both resource priming conditions indicated faster symptom reduction. The observer ratings of a sub-sample of recorded videos (n = 100) showed that the therapists in the resource priming conditions conducted more strength-oriented interventions in comparison with the adherence priming condition. No patients died or attempted suicide.To our knowledge, this is the first trial that focuses on capitalization and compensation models during the implementation of one prescriptive treatment packet for GAD. We have shown that GAD related symptoms were significantly faster reduced by the resource priming conditions, although the limitations of our study included a well-educated population. If replicated, our results suggest that therapists who implement a mental health treatment for GAD might profit from a systematized focus on capitalization models.Swiss Science National Foundation (SNSF-Nr. PZ00P1_136937/1) awarded to CF.
| S-EPMC4739431 | biostudies-literature
Project description:U.S. health care systems are tasked with alleviating the burden of mental health, but are frequently underprepared and lack workforce and resource capacity to deliver services to all in need. Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) can increase access to evidence-based mental health care. However, DMHIs commonly do not fit into the day-to-day activities of the people who engage with them, resulting in a research-to-practice gap for DMHI implementation. For health care settings, differences between digital and traditional mental health services make alignment and integration challenging. Specialized attention is needed to improve the implementation of DMHIs in health care settings so that these services yield high uptake, engagement, and sustainment. The purpose of this article is to enhance efforts to integrate DMHIs in health care settings by proposing implementation strategies, selected and operationalized based on the discrete strategies established in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change project, that align to DMHI-specific barriers in these settings. Guidance is offered in how these strategies can be applied to DMHI implementation across four phases commonly distinguished in implementation science using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment Framework. Next steps to advance research in this area and improve the research-to-practice gap for implementing DMHIs are recommended. Applying implementation strategies to DMHI implementation will enable psychologists to systematically evaluate this process, which can yield an enhanced understanding of the factors that facilitate implementation success and improve the translation of DMHIs from controlled trials to real-world settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
| S-EPMC7709140 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUsing mobile communication technology as new personalized approach to treat mental disorders or to more generally improve quality of life is highly promising. Knowledge about intervention components that target key psychopathological processes in terms of transdiagnostic psychotherapy approaches is urgently needed. We explored the use of smartphone-based micro-interventions based on psychotherapeutic techniques, guided by short video-clips, to elicit mood changes.MethodAs part of a larger neurofeedback study, all subjects-after being randomly assigned to an experimental or control neurofeedback condition-underwent daily smartphone-based micro-interventions for 13 consecutive days. They were free to choose out of provided techniques, including viscerosensory attention, emotional imagery, facial expression, and contemplative repetition. Changes in mood were assessed in real world using the Multidimensional Mood State Questionnaire (scales: good-bad, GB; awake-tired, AT; and calm-nervous, CN).ResultsTwenty-seven men participated on at least 11 days and were thus included in the analyses. Altogether, they underwent 335, generally well-tolerated, micro-intervention sessions, with viscerosensory attention (178 sessions, 53.13%) and contemplative repetition (68 sessions, 20.30%) being the most frequently applied techniques. Mixed models indicated that subjects showed better mood [GB: b = 0.464, 95%confidence interval (CI) [0.068, 0.860], t (613.3) = 2.298, p = 0.022] and became more awake [AT: b = 0.514, 95%CI [0.103, 0.925], t (612.4) = 2.456, p = 0.014] and calmer [CN: b = 0.685, 95%CI [0.360, 1.010], t (612.3) = 4.137, p < 0.001] from pre- to post-micro-intervention. These mood improvements from pre- to post-micro-intervention were associated with changes in mood from the 1st day until the last day with regard to GB mood (r = 0.614, 95%CI [0.297, 0.809], p < 0.001), but not AT mood (r = 0.279, 95%CI [-0.122, 0.602], p = 0.167) and CN mood (r = 0.277, 95%CI [0.124, 0.601], p = 0.170).DiscussionOur findings provide evidence for the applicability of smartphone-based micro-interventions eliciting short-term mood changes, based on techniques used in psychotherapeutic approaches, such as mindfulness-based psychotherapy, transcendental meditation, and other contemplative therapies. The results encourage exploring these techniques' capability to improve mood in randomized controlled studies and patients. Smartphone-based micro-interventions are promising to modify mood in real-world settings, complementing other psychotherapeutic interventions, in line with the precision medicine approach. The here presented data were collected within a randomized trial, registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01921088) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01921088.
| S-EPMC4963605 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is an increasing push for 'evidence-based' decision making in global health policy circles. However, at present there are no agreed upon standards or guidelines for how to evaluate evidence in global health. Recent evaluations of existing evidence frameworks that could serve such a purpose have identified details of program context and project implementation as missing components needed to inform policy. We performed a pilot study to assess the current state of reporting of context and implementation in studies of global health interventions.MethodsWe identified three existing criteria sets for implementation reporting and selected from them 10 criteria potentially relevant to the needs of policy makers in global health contexts. We applied these 10 criteria to 15 articles included in the evidence base for three global health interventions chosen to represent a diverse set of advocated global health programs or interventions: household water chlorination, prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV, and lay community health workers to reduce child mortality. We used a good-fair-poor/none scale for the ratings.ResultsThe proportion of criteria for which reporting was poor/none ranged from 11% to 54% with an average of 30%. Eight articles had 'good' or 'fair' documentation for greater than 75% of criteria, while five articles had 'poor or none' documentation for 50% of criteria or more. Examples of good reporting were identified.ConclusionsReporting of context and implementation information in studies of global health interventions is mostly fair or poor, and highly variable. The idiosyncratic variability in reporting indicates that global health investigators need more guidance about what aspects of context and implementation to measure and how to report them. This lack of context and implementation information is a major gap in the evidence needed by global health policy makers to reach decisions.
| S-EPMC4043974 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionA strategic approach to the application of HIV prevention interventions is a core component of the UNAIDS Fast Track strategy to end the HIV epidemic by 2030. Central to these plans is a focus on high-prevalence geographies, in a bid to target resources to those in greatest need and maximize the reduction in new infections. Whilst this idea of geographical prioritization has the potential to improve efficiency, it is unclear how it should be implemented in practice. There are a range of prevention interventions which can be applied differentially across risk groups and locations, making allocation decisions complex. Here, we use mathematical modelling to compare the impact (infections averted) of a number of different approaches to the implementation of geographical prioritization of prevention interventions, similar to those emerging in policy and practice, across a range of prevention budgets.MethodsWe use geographically specific mathematical models of the epidemic and response in 48 counties and major cities of Kenya to project the impact of the different geographical prioritization approaches. We compare the geographical allocation strategies with a nationally uniform approach under which the same interventions must be applied across all modelled locations.ResultsWe find that the most extreme geographical prioritization strategy, which focuses resources exclusively to high-prevalence locations, may substantially restrict impact (41% fewer infections averted) compared to a nationally uniform approach, as opportunities for highly effective interventions for high-risk populations in lower-prevalence areas are missed. Other geographical allocation approaches, which intensify efforts in higher-prevalence areas whilst maintaining a minimum package of cost-effective interventions everywhere, consistently improve impact at all budget levels. Such strategies balance the need for greater investment in locations with the largest epidemics whilst ensuring higher-risk groups in lower-priority locations are provided with cost-effective interventions.ConclusionsOur findings serve as a warning to not be too selective in the application of prevention strategies. Further research is needed to understand how decision-makers can find the right balance between the choice of interventions, focus on high-risk populations, and geographical targeting to ensure the greatest impact of HIV prevention.
| S-EPMC5810320 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The clinical pathway is a tool that operationalizes best evidence recommendations and clinical practice guidelines in an accessible format for 'point of care' management by multidisciplinary health teams in hospital settings. While high-quality, expert-developed clinical pathways have many potential benefits, their impact has been limited by variable implementation strategies and suboptimal research designs. Best strategies for implementing pathways into hospital settings remain unknown. This study will seek to develop and comprehensively evaluate best strategies for effective local implementation of externally developed expert clinical pathways.We will develop a theory-based and knowledge user-informed intervention strategy to implement two pediatric clinical pathways: asthma and gastroenteritis. Using a balanced incomplete block design, we will randomize 16 community emergency departments to receive the intervention for one clinical pathway and serve as control for the alternate clinical pathway, thus conducting two cluster randomized controlled trials to evaluate this implementation intervention. A minimization procedure will be used to randomize sites. Intervention sites will receive a tailored strategy to support full clinical pathway implementation. We will evaluate implementation strategy effectiveness through measurement of relevant process and clinical outcomes. The primary process outcome will be the presence of an appropriately completed clinical pathway on the chart for relevant patients. Primary clinical outcomes for each clinical pathway include the following: Asthma--the proportion of asthmatic patients treated appropriately with corticosteroids in the emergency department and at discharge; and Gastroenteritis--the proportion of relevant patients appropriately treated with oral rehydration therapy. Data sources include chart audits, administrative databases, environmental scans, and qualitative interviews. We will also conduct an overall process evaluation to assess the implementation strategy and an economic analysis to evaluate implementation costs and benefits.This study will contribute to the body of evidence supporting effective strategies for clinical pathway implementation, and ultimately reducing the research to practice gaps by operationalizing best evidence care recommendations through effective use of clinical pathways.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01815710.
| S-EPMC3674906 | biostudies-literature