Dataset Information

Supporting the implementation of stroke quality-based procedures (QBPs): a mixed methods evaluation to identify knowledge translation activities, knowledge translation interventions, and determinants of implementation across Ontario.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In 2013, Health Quality Ontario introduced stroke quality-based procedures (QBPs) to promote use of evidence-based practices for patients with stroke in Ontario hospitals. The study purpose was to: (a) describe the knowledge translation (KT) interventions used to support stroke QBP implementation, (b) assess differences in the planned and reported KT interventions by region, and (c) explore determinants perceived to have affected outcomes.

Methods

A mixed methods approach was used to evaluate: activities, KT interventions, and determinants of stroke QBP implementation. In Phase 1, a document review of regional stroke network work plans was conducted to capture the types of KT activities planned at a regional level; these were mapped to the knowledge to action framework. In Phase 2, we surveyed Ontario hospital staff to identify the KT interventions used to support QBP implementation at an organizational level. Phase 3 involved qualitative interviews with staff to elucidate deeper understanding of survey findings.

Results

Of the 446 activities identified in the document review, the most common were 'dissemination' (24.2%; n?=?108), 'implementation' (22.6%; n?=?101), 'implementation planning' (15.0%; n?=?67), and 'knowledge tools' (10.5%; n?=?47). Based on survey data (n?=?489), commonly reported KT interventions included: staff educational meetings (43.1%; n?=?154), champions (41.5%; n?=?148), and staff educational materials (40.6%; n?=?145). Survey participants perceived stroke QBP implementation to be successful (median?=?5/7; interquartile range?=?4-6; range?=?1-7; n?=?335). Forty-four people (e.g., managers, senior leaders, regional stroke network representatives, and frontline staff) participated in interviews/focus groups. Perceived facilitators to QBP implementation included networks and collaborations with external organizations, leadership engagement, and hospital prioritization of stroke QBP. Perceived barriers included lack of funding, size of the hospital (i.e., too small), lack of resources (i.e., staff and time), and simultaneous implementation of other QBPs.

Conclusions

Information on the types of activities and KT interventions used to support stroke QBP implementation and the key determinants influencing uptake of stroke QBPs can be used to inform future activities including the development and evaluation of interventions to address barriers and leverage facilitators.

SUBMITTER: Moore JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6006745 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Supporting the implementation of stroke quality-based procedures (QBPs): a mixed methods evaluation to identify knowledge translation activities, knowledge translation interventions, and determinants of implementation across Ontario.

Moore Julia E JE Marquez Christine C Dufresne Kristen K Harris Charmalee C Park Jamie J Sayal Radha R Kastner Monika M Kelloway Linda L Munce Sarah E P SEP Bayley Mark M Meyer Matthew M Straus Sharon E SE

BMC health services research 20180618 1

<h4>Background</h4>In 2013, Health Quality Ontario introduced stroke quality-based procedures (QBPs) to promote use of evidence-based practices for patients with stroke in Ontario hospitals. The study purpose was to: (a) describe the knowledge translation (KT) interventions used to support stroke QBP implementation, (b) assess differences in the planned and reported KT interventions by region, and (c) explore determinants perceived to have affected outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>A mixed methods approa ...[more]

PMID: 29914466

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinical research coordinators (CRCs) facilitate the interaction between researchers and knowledge users in rehabilitation centres to promote and sustain evidence-informed practices. Despite their presence in rehabilitation settings in Quebec for over 20 years, little is known about their profiles and knowledge translation (KT) activities nor how they can best enact their role. This study explored CRCs' roles and perspectives on the barriers, enablers, and strategies for improving KT activities in rehabilitation settings.MethodsWe conducted a multi-centre, participatory sequential mixed methods study. In the descriptive quantitative phase, we collected data via an online survey to determine CRCs' role in research and KT. In the subsequent qualitative phase, we conducted an in-person focus group to elicit CRCs' perspectives regarding factors influencing their work in KT, and potential solutions for overcoming these challenges. We used a descriptive and an inductive content analysis approach for the data analysis. The data synthesis was inspired by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework.ResultsAll nine CRCs from five partner health regions of a large rehabilitation research centre agreed to participate in the study. The data suggest that CRCs are like knowledge brokers and boundary spanners. As information managers, linkage agents and facilitators, CRCs play a pivot role in diffusion, dissemination, synthesis and tailoring of knowledge to improve evidence informed practices and quality of care in rehabilitation. The factors influencing CRCs' KT activities are mostly linked to the context such as the receptivity of the organization as well as the lack of time and resources, and limited understanding of their roles by stakeholders. Two main suggestions made to enhance CRCs' contribution to KT activities include the harmonisation of expectations between the large research centre and their partner health regions, and better promotion of their role to clinical and research teams.ConclusionsThis study provides valuable insights into the scope of CRCs' role. The results shed light on the challenges that they face and potential solutions to overcome them. The knowledge generated in this study can be used to implement this role with similar duties in rehabilitation settings or other health care domains.

Project description:BackgroundScreening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer has been shown to reduce mortality; however, not all men and women are screened in the USA. Further, there are disparities in screening uptake by people from racial and ethnic minority groups, people with low income, people who lack health insurance, and those who lack access to care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds two programs-the Colorectal Cancer Control Program and the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program-to help increase cancer screenings among groups that have been economically and socially marginalized. The goal of this manuscript is to describe how programs and their partners integrate evidence-based interventions (e.g., patient reminders) and supporting activities (e.g., practice facilitation to optimize electronic medical records) across colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas based on implementation science.MethodsWe conducted an exploratory assessment using qualitative and quantitative data to describe implementation of integrated interventions and supporting activities for cancer screening. We conducted 10 site visits and follow-up telephone interviews with health systems and their partners to inform the integration processes. We developed a conceptual model to describe the integration processes and reviewed screening recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force to illustrate challenges in integration. To identify factors important in program implementation, we asked program implementers to rank domains and constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.ResultsHealth systems integrated interventions for all screenings across single and multiple levels. Although potentially efficient, there were challenges due to differing eligibility of screenings by age, gender, frequency, and location of services. Program implementers ranked complexity, cost, implementation climate, and engagement of appropriate staff in implementation among the most important factors to success.ConclusionIntegrating interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of cancer screenings could be an effective and efficient approach, but we currently do not have the evidence to recommend widescale adoption. Detailed multilevel measures related to process, screening, and implementation outcomes, and cost are required to evaluate integrated programs. Systematic studies can help to ascertain the benefits of integrating interventions and supporting activities for multiple cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas that might address current gaps in the literature.

Project description:BackgroundCervical cancer constitutes a huge burden among women in Nigeria, particularly HIV-infected women. However, the provision and uptake of cervical cancer screening and treatment is limited in Nigeria. Understanding implementation determinants is essential for the effective translation of such evidence-based interventions into practice, particularly in low-resource settings. COVID-19 pandemic necessitated online collaboration making implementation mapping challenging in some ways, while providing streamlining opportunities. In this study, we describe the use of a virtual online approach for implementation mapping (steps 1-3) to identify implementation determinants, mechanisms, and strategies to implement evidence-based cervical cancer screening and treatment in existing HIV infrastructure in Nigeria.MethodsThis study used a mixed methods study design with a virtual modified nominal group technique (NGT) process aligning with Implementation Mapping steps 1-3. Eleven stakeholders (six program staff and five healthcare providers and administrators) participated in a virtual NGT process which occurred in two phases. The first phase utilized online surveys, and the second phase utilized an NGT and implementation mapping process. The Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment (EPIS) framework was used to elicit discussion around determinants and strategies from the outer context (i.e., country and regions), inner organizational context of existing HIV infrastructure, bridging factors that relate to bi-directional influences, and the health innovation to be implemented (in this case cervical cancer screening and treatment). During the NGT, the group ranked implementation barriers and voted on implementation strategies using Mentimeter.ResultsEighteen determinants to integrating cervical cancer screening and treatment into existing comprehensive HIV programs were related to human resources capacity, access to cervical cancer services, logistics management, clinic, and client-related factors. The top 3 determinants included gaps in human resources capacity, poor access to cervical cancer services, and lack of demand for services resulting from lack of awareness about the disease and servicesA set of six core implementation strategies and two enhanced implementation strategies were identified.ConclusionsRapid Implementation Mapping is a feasible and acceptable approach for identifying and articulating implementation determinants, mechanisms, and strategies for complex healthcare interventions in LMICs.

Project description:BackgroundThe Collaboration for Evidence-based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) is a research consortium concerned with the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of non-communicable diseases. CEBHA+ seeks to engage policymakers and practitioners throughout the research process in order to build lasting relationships, enhance evidence uptake, and create long-term capacity among partner institutions in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa and Uganda in collaboration with two German universities. This integrated knowledge translation (IKT) approach includes the formal development, implementation and evaluation of country specific IKT strategies.MethodsWe have conceptualised the CEBHA+ IKT approach as a complex intervention in a complex system. We will employ a comparative case study (CCS) design and mixed methods to facilitate an in-depth evaluation. We will use quantitative surveys, qualitative interviews, quarterly updates, and a policy document analysis to capture the process and outcomes of IKT across the African CEBHA+ partner sites. We will conduct an early stage (early 2020) and a late-stage evaluation (early 2022), triangulate the data collected with various methods at each site and subsequently compare our findings across the five sites.DiscussionEvaluating a complex intervention such as the CEBHA+ IKT approach is complicated, even more so when undertaken across five diverse countries. Despite conceptual, methodological and practical challenges, our comparative case study addresses important evidence gaps: While involving decision-makers in the research process is gaining traction worldwide, we still know very little regarding (i) whether this approach really makes a difference to evidence uptake, (ii) the mechanisms that make IKT successful, and (iii) relevant differences across socio-cultural contexts. The evaluation described here is intended to provide relevant insights on all of these aspects, notably in countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, and is expected to contribute to the science of IKT overall.

Dataset Information

Supporting the implementation of stroke quality-based procedures (QBPs): a mixed methods evaluation to identify knowledge translation activities, knowledge translation interventions, and determinants of implementation across Ontario.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Supporting the implementation of stroke quality-based procedures (QBPs): a mixed methods evaluation to identify knowledge translation activities, knowledge translation interventions, and determinants of implementation across Ontario.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets