Dataset Information

Adaptation and Implementation of the STarT Back Risk Stratification Strategy in a US Health Care Organization: A Process Evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To support implementation of effective treatments for back pain that can be delivered to a range of people, we summarize learnings from our process evaluation of the MATCH trial's implementation of an adaptation of the STarT Back risk-stratified care model.

Design

Our logic model-driven evaluation focused primarily on qualitative data sources.

Setting

This study took place in a US-based health care delivery system that had adapted and implemented the STarT Back stratified care approach. This was the first formal test of the strategy in a US setting.

Methods

Data collection included observation of implementation activities, staff/provider interviews, and post-training evaluation questionnaires. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis of qualitative data and descriptive statistics for questionnaire data.

Results

We found that both primary care teams and physical therapists at intervention clinics gave the training high scores on evaluation questionnaires and reported in the interviews that they found the training engaging and useful. However, there was significant variation in the extent to which the risk stratification strategy was incorporated into care. Some primary care providers reported that the intervention changed their conversations with patients and increased their confidence in working with patients with back pain. Providers using the STarT Back tool did not change referral rates for recommended matched treatments.

Conclusions

These insights provide guidance for future efforts to adapt and implement the STarT Back strategy and other complex practice change interventions. They emphasize the need for primary care-based interventions to minimize complexity and the need for ongoing monitoring and feedback.

SUBMITTER: Hsu C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6934440 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adaptation and Implementation of the STarT Back Risk Stratification Strategy in a US Health Care Organization: A Process Evaluation.

Hsu Clarissa C Evers Sarah S Balderson Benjamin H BH Sherman Karen J KJ Foster Nadine E NE Estlin Katherin K Levine Martin M Cherkin Dan D

Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) 20190601 6

<h4>Objective</h4>To support implementation of effective treatments for back pain that can be delivered to a range of people, we summarize learnings from our process evaluation of the MATCH trial's implementation of an adaptation of the STarT Back risk-stratified care model.<h4>Design</h4>Our logic model-driven evaluation focused primarily on qualitative data sources.<h4>Setting</h4>This study took place in a US-based health care delivery system that had adapted and implemented the STarT Back st ...[more]

PMID: 30272177

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Accessibility to efficient and person-centered healthcare delivery drives healthcare transformation in many countries. In Singapore, specialist outpatient clinics (SOCs) are commonly congested due to increasing demands for chronic care. To improve this situation, the National University Health System (NUHS) Regional Health System (RHS) started an integrated care initiative,the Right-Site Care (RSC) program in 2014. Through collaborations between SOCs at the National University Hospital and primary and community care (PCC) clinics in the western region of the county, the program was designed to facilitate timely discharge and appropriate transition of patients, who no longer required specialist care, to the community. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation fidelity of the NUHS RHS RSC program using the modified Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity (CFIF), at three distinct levels; providers, organizational, and system levels to explain outcomes of the program and to inform further development of (similar) programs. METHODS:A convergent parallel mixed methods study using the realist evaluation approach was used. Data were collected between 2016 and 2018 through non-participatory observations, reviews of medical records and program database, together with semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers. Triangulation of data streams was applied guided by the modified CFIF. RESULTS:Our findings showed four out of six program components were implemented with low level of fidelity, and 9112 suitable patients were referred to the program while 3032 (33.3%) declined to be enrolled. Moderating factors found to influence fidelity included: (i) complexity of program, (ii) evolving providers' responsiveness, (iii) facilitation through synergistic partnership, training of PCC providers by specialists and supportive structures: care coordinators, guiding protocols, shared electronic medical record and shared pharmacy, (iv) lack of organization reinforcement, and (v) mismatch between program goals, healthcare financing and providers' reimbursement. CONCLUSION:Functional integration alone is insufficient for a successful right-site care program implementation. Improvement in relationships between providers, organizations, and patients are also warranted for further development of the program.

Project description:IntroductionIn Africa, oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is largely provided via over-burdened public HIV care clinics. Successfully incorporating PrEP services into these clinics may require adaptations to practices outlined in national implementation guidelines and modifications to routine existing service delivery. We aimed to describe adaptations made by public HIV clinics in Kenya to integrate PrEP delivery into existing services.MethodsThe Partners Scale-Up Project aimed to catalyse integration of PrEP in 25 public HIV care clinics. Between May and December 2018, we conducted qualitative interviews with health providers and documented clinic observations in technical assistance (TA) reports to understand the process of PrEP service integration. We analysed 36 health provider interview transcripts and 25 TA reports to identify clinic-level adaptations to activities outlined in Kenyan Ministry of Health PrEP guidelines and modifications made to existing service delivery practices to successfully incorporate PrEP services. Identified adaptations were reported using the expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications (FRAME).ResultsAll clinics (n = 25) performed HIV testing, HIV risk assessment, PrEP education and adherence counselling as stipulated in the guidelines. Most clinics initiated clients on PrEP without creatinine testing if otherwise healthy. While monthly refill appointments are recommended, a majority of clinics issued PrEP users two to three months of pills at a time. Clinics also implemented practices that had not been specified in the guidelines including incorporating PrEP-related topics into routine health talks, calling clients with missed PrEP appointments, discussing PrEP service delivery in regular staff meetings, 'fast-tracking' PrEP clients and dispensing PrEP in clinic rooms rather than at clinic-based pharmacies. PrEP initiation numbers were highest among clinics that did not require creatinine testing, conducted peer on-the-job PrEP training and those that discussed PrEP delivery in their routine meetings. Above-average continuation was observed among clinics that discussed PrEP in their routine meetings, dispensed PrEP in clinic rooms and offered PrEP at nonregular hours.ConclusionsHealth providers in public HIV care clinics instituted practices and made innovative adaptations to PrEP delivery to reduce barriers for clients and staff. Encouraging clinic level adaptations to national implementation guidelines will facilitate scale-up of PrEP delivery.

Project description:Influenza transmitted by health care workers (HCWs) is a potential threat to frail patients in acute health care settings. Therefore, immunizing HCWs against influenza should receive high priority. Despite recommendations of the World Health Organization, vaccine coverage of HCWs remains low in all European countries. This study explores the use of intervention strategies and methods to improve influenza vaccination rates among HCWs in an acute care setting.The Intervention Mapping (IM) method was used to systematically develop and implement an intervention strategy aimed at changing influenza vaccination behaviour among HCWs in Dutch University Medical Centres (UMCs). Carried out during the influenza seasons 2009/2010 and 2010/2011, the interventions were then qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated by way of feedback from participating UMCs and the completion of a web-based staff questionnaire in the following spring of each season.The IM method resulted in the development of a transparent influenza vaccination intervention implementation strategy. The intervention strategy was offered to six Dutch UMCs in a randomized in a clustered Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT), where three UMCs were chosen for intervention, and three UMCs acted as controls. A further two UMCs elected to have the intervention. The qualitative process evaluation showed that HCWs at four of the five intervention UMCs were responsive to the majority of the 11 relevant behavioural determinants resulting from the needs assessment in their intervention strategy compared with only one of three control UMCs. The quantitative evaluation among a sample of HCWs revealed that of all the developed communication materials, HCWs reported the posters as the most noticeable.Our study demonstrates that it is possible to develop a structured implementation strategy for increasing the rate of influenza vaccination by HCWs in acute health care settings. The evaluation also showed that it is impossible to expose all HCWs to all intervention methods (which would have been the best case scenario). Further study is needed to (1) improve HCW exposure to intervention methods; (2) determine the effect of such interventions on vaccine uptake among HCWs; and (3) assess the impact on clinical outcomes among patients when such interventions are enacted.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The STarT Back strategy for categorizing and treating patients with low back pain (LBP) improved patients' function while reducing costs in England. OBJECTIVE:This trial evaluated the effect of implementing an adaptation of this approach in a US setting. DESIGN:The Matching Appropriate Treatments to Consumer Healthcare needs (MATCH) trial was a pragmatic cluster randomized trial with a pre-intervention baseline period. Six primary care clinics were pair randomized, three to training in the STarT Back strategy and three to serve as controls. PARTICIPANTS:Adults receiving primary care for non-specific LBP were invited to provide data 2 weeks after their primary care visit and follow-up data 2 and 6 months (primary endpoint) later. INTERVENTIONS:The STarT Back risk-stratification strategy matches treatments for LBP to physical and psychosocial obstacles to recovery using patient-reported data (the STarT Back Tool) to categorize patients' risk of persistent disabling pain. Primary care clinicians in the intervention clinics attended six didactic sessions to improve their understanding LBP management and received in-person training in the use of the tool that had been incorporated into the electronic health record (EHR). Physical therapists received 5 days of intensive training. Control clinics received no training. MAIN MEASURES:Primary outcomes were back-related physical function and pain severity. Intervention effects were estimated by comparing mean changes in patient outcomes after 2 and 6 months between intervention and control clinics. Differences in change scores by trial arm and time period were estimated using linear mixed effect models. Secondary outcomes included healthcare utilization. KEY RESULTS:Although clinicians used the tool for about half of their patients, they did not change the treatments they recommended. The intervention had no significant effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use. CONCLUSIONS:A resource-intensive intervention to support stratified care for LBP in a US healthcare setting had no effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use. TRIAL REGISTRATION:National Clinical Trial Number NCT02286141.

Project description:IntroductionDementia care management is a complex intervention intended to support persons with dementia and their (caring) relatives in home-based care arrangements. Dementia care management was developed in the federal state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in Germany and subsequently adapted for the German region of Siegen-Wittgenstein, where it will now be implemented. Four different service providers will carry out the implementation process. This study protocol describes the planned procedures for the parallel evaluation of the implementation process.Methods and analysisA multiple embedded case study design was chosen for the planned process evaluation. Data collection and analysis will be informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change, the Medical Research Council framework for conducting process evaluations of complex interventions and the Taxonomy of Outcomes for Implementation Research. Information (qualitative and quantitative) will be collected from all stakeholders involved in the dementia care management intervention (ie, dementia care managers, general practitioners, people with dementia).Ethics and disseminationThe process evaluation is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the recommendations on good scientific practice, the research ethics principles of the Code of Ethics of the German Society of Nursing Science, and on the basis of ethical approval from the Clinical Ethics Committee of University Medicine Greifswald (BB 110/22). The results of the process evaluation will be disseminated through reports to the funders of the study and also as a summary of recommendations for the sustainable implementation of dementia care management for future implementers. We also plan to publish the results of this process evaluation in an international peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT05529277, Registered 7 September 2022, https://beta.Clinicaltrialsgov/study/NCT05529277.

Project description:BackgroundThe Grip on Challenging Behavior care program for managing challenging behavior was implemented in the dementia special care units of 17 Dutch nursing homes. A process evaluation of the implementation of the care program was performed to determine the quality of the implementation and the lessons to be learned for future implementation.MethodsThe care program was implemented according to a stepped wedge design. First-order data (data on recruitment, reach, relevance and feasibility) were used to determine the validity of the study, and second-order data (intervention quality and the barriers and facilitators for implementing the care program) were used to describe the implementation process. Two structured questionnaires were administered to care staff and key stakeholders and semi-structured interviews were held in the units.ResultsUniversity affiliated and non-affiliated nursing homes from different parts of the Netherlands participated. The resident participation rate was over 95% and the participation rate for the training sessions was 82%. Respondents considered the care program relevant and feasible. The degree of implementation was not optimal. The barriers and facilitators in implementing the care program could be divided into three categories: organizational aspects, culture on the unit and aspects of the care program itself.ConclusionsThe recruitment, reach, relevance and feasibility are sufficient to allow for analysis and generalization of the effects of the care program, but the degree of implementation should be taken into account in further analysis. Future projects that involve implementation should consider the specific features of the organization and the cultural orientation of the unit to better adapt to specific needs.Trial registrationThe Netherlands National Trial register under number NTR2141 registered on 11 December 2009. Randomization took place in November 2010, and the first intervention group started using the intervention in February 2011.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess implementation and to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation, sustainability and scalability of an implementation strategy to provide lay health workers (LHWs) with the knowledge, skills and tools needed to implement an intervention to support patient tuberculosis (TB) treatment adherence.DesignMixed-methods design including a cluster randomised controlled trial and process evaluation informed by the RE-AIM framework.SettingForty-five health centres (HCs) in four districts in the south east zone of Malawi, who had an opportunity to receive cascade training.ParticipantsForty-five peer-trainers (PTs), 23 patients and 20 LHWs.InterventionImplementation strategy employing peer-led educational outreach, a clinical support tool and peer support network to implement a TB treatment adherence intervention.Outcome measuresProcess data were collected from study initiation to the end-of-study PT meeting, and included: LHW and patient interviews, quarterly PT meeting notes, training logs and study team observations and meeting notes. Data sources were first analysed in isolation, followed by method, data source and analyst triangulation. Analyses were conducted independently by two study team members, and themes revised through discussion and involvement of additional study team members as needed.ResultsForty-one HCs (91%) trained at least one LHW. Of 256 LHWs eligible to participate at study start 152 (59%) completed training, with the proportion trained per HC ranging from 0% to 100% at the end of initial cascade training. Lack of training incentives was the primary barrier to implementation, with intrinsic motivation to improve knowledge and skills, and to improve patient care and outcomes the primary facilitators of participation.ConclusionWe identified important challenges to and potential facilitators of implementation, scalability and sustainability, of the TB treatment adherence intervention. Findings provide guidance to scale-up, and use of the implementation strategies employed, to address LHW training and supervision in other areas.Trial registration numberNCT02533089.

Dataset Information

Adaptation and Implementation of the STarT Back Risk Stratification Strategy in a US Health Care Organization: A Process Evaluation.

Objective

Design

Setting

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Adaptation and Implementation of the STarT Back Risk Stratification Strategy in a US Health Care Organization: A Process Evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets