Dataset Information

Evaluation of iLead, a generic implementation leadership intervention: mixed-method preintervention-postintervention design.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:The present study aimed to evaluate the iLead intervention and to investigate whether or not transfer of training can be supported by contextualising the intervention (recruiting all managers from one branch of the organisation while focusing on one implementation case, as well as training senior management). DESIGN:A pre-evaluation-postevaluation design was applied using mixed methods with process and effect surveys and interviews to measure the effects on three levels. SETTING:Healthcare managers from Stockholm's regional healthcare organisation were invited to the training. PARTICIPANTS:52 managers participated in the iLead intervention. Group 1 consisted of 21 managers from different organisations and with different implementation cases. Group 2, representing the contextualised group, consisted of 31 managers from the same organisation, working on the same implementation case, where senior management also received training. INTERVENTION:iLead is an intervention where healthcare managers are trained in implementation leadership based on the full-range leadership model. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Reactions, knowledge and implementation leadership are measured. RESULTS:Quantitative and qualitative analyses indicate that iLead was perceived to be of high quality and capable of increasing participants' knowledge. Mixed effects were found regarding changes in behaviours. The contextualisation did not have a boosting effect on behaviour change. Hence, group 2 did not increase its active implementation leadership in comparison with group 1. CONCLUSIONS:iLead introduces a new approach to how implementation leadership can be trained when knowledge of effective leadership for implementations is combined with findings on the importance of environmental factors for the transfer of training. Even though managers reported general positive effects, transfer was not facilitated through the contextualisation of the intervention. There is a need to further develop approaches to help participants subsequently apply the learnt skills in their work environment.

SUBMITTER: Richter A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7045007 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of iLead, a generic implementation leadership intervention: mixed-method preintervention-postintervention design.

Richter Anne A Lornudd Caroline C von Thiele Schwarz Ulrica U Lundmark Robert R Mosson Rebecca R Eskner Skoger Ulrika U Hirvikoski Tatja T Hasson Henna H

BMJ open 20200112 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>The present study aimed to evaluate the iLead intervention and to investigate whether or not transfer of training can be supported by contextualising the intervention (recruiting all managers from one branch of the organisation while focusing on one implementation case, as well as training senior management).<h4>Design</h4>A pre-evaluation-postevaluation design was applied using mixed methods with process and effect surveys and interviews to measure the effects on three levels ...[more]

PMID: 31932392

Similar Datasets

Project description:Leadership is a key feature in implementation efforts, which is highlighted in most implementation frameworks. However, in studying leadership and implementation, only few studies rely on established leadership theory, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions regarding what kinds of leadership managers should perform and under what circumstances. In industrial and organizational psychology, transformational leadership and contingent reward have been identified as effective leadership styles for facilitating change processes, and these styles map well onto the behaviors identified in implementation research. However, it has been questioned whether these general leadership styles are sufficient to foster specific results; it has therefore been suggested that the leadership should be specific to the domain of interest, e.g., implementation. To this end, an intervention specifically involving leadership, which we call implementation leadership, is developed and tested in this project. The aim of the intervention is to increase healthcare managers' generic implementation leadership skills, which they can use for any implementation efforts in the future.The intervention is conducted in healthcare in Stockholm County, Sweden, where first- and second-line managers were invited to participate. Two intervention groups are included, including 52 managers. Intervention group 1 consists of individual managers, and group 2 of managers from one division. A control group of 39 managers is additionally included. The intervention consists of five half-day workshops aiming at increasing the managers' implementation leadership, which is the primary outcome of this intervention. The intervention will be evaluated through a mixed-methods approach. A pre- and post-design applying questionnaires at three time points (pre-, directly after the intervention, and 6 months post-intervention) will be used, in addition to process evaluation questionnaires related to each workshop. In addition, interviews will be conducted over time to evaluate the intervention.The proposed intervention represents a novel contribution to the implementation literature, being the first to focus on strengthening healthcare managers' generic skills in implementation leadership.

Project description:BACKGROUND | OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation of three intervention elements to reduce hospitalizations in nursing home residents.DesignConvergent mixed-method design within a hybrid type-2 effectiveness-implementation study.SettingEleven nursing homes in the German-speaking region of Switzerland.ParticipantsQuantitative data were collected from 573 care workers; qualitative data were collected from 108 care workers and the leadership from 11 nursing homes.InterventionThree intervention elements targeting care workers were implemented to reduce unplanned hospitalizations: (1) the STOP&WATCH instrument for early recognition of changes in resident condition; (2) the ISBAR instrument for structured communication; and (3) specially-trained INTERCARE nurses providing on-site geriatric support. Multifaceted implementation strategies focusing both on the overall nursing home organization and on the care workers were used.MethodsThe quantitative part comprised surveys of care workers six- and twelve-months post-intervention. The intervention's acceptability, feasibility and uptake were assessed using validated and self-developed scales. Qualitative data were collected in 22 focus groups with care workers, then analyzed using thematic analysis methodology. Data on implementation processes were collected during implementation meetings with nursing home leadership and were analyzed via content analysis. Findings were integrated using a complementary approach.ResultsThe ISBAR instrument and the INTERCARE nurse role were considered acceptable, feasible, and taken up by > 70% of care workers. The STOP&WATCH instrument showed the lowest acceptance (mean: 68%), ranging from 24 to 100% across eleven nursing homes. A combination of factors, including the amount of information received, the amount of support provided in daily practice, the users' perceived ease of using the intervention and its adaptations, and the intervention's usefulness, appeared to influence the implementation's success. Two exemplary nursing homes illustrated context-specific implementation processes that serve as either barriers or facilitators to implementation.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that, alongside the provision of information shortly before intervention start, constant daily support is crucial for implementation success. Ideally, this support is provided by designated and trained individuals who oversee implementation at the organizational and unit levels. Leaders who seek to implement interventions in nursing homes should consider their complexity and their consequences for workflow to optimize implementation processes accordingly.Trial registrationThis study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03590470 ) on the 18/06/2018.

Project description:BackgroundRelapse is common in people who experience psychosis and is associated with many negative consequences, both societal and personal. People who relapse often exhibit changes (early warning signs [EWS]) in the period before relapse. Successful identification of EWS offers an opportunity for relapse prevention. However, several known barriers impede the use of EWS monitoring approaches. Early signs Monitoring to Prevent relapse in psychosis and prOmote Well-being, Engagement, and Recovery (EMPOWER) is a complex digital intervention that uses a mobile app to enhance the detection and management of self-reported changes in well-being. This is currently being tested in a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial. As digital interventions have not been widely used in relapse prevention, little is known about their implementation. Process evaluation studies run in parallel to clinical trials can provide valuable data on intervention feasibility.ObjectiveThis study aims to transparently describe the protocol for the process evaluation element of the EMPOWER trial. We will focus on the development of a process evaluation framework sensitive to the worldview of service users, mental health staff, and carers; the aims of the process evaluation itself; the proposed studies to address these aims; and a plan for integration of results from separate process evaluation studies into one overall report.MethodsThe overall process evaluation will utilize mixed methods across 6 substudies. Among them, 4 will use qualitative methodologies, 1 will use a mixed methods approach, and 1 will use quantitative methodologies.ResultsThe results of all studies will be triangulated into an overall analysis and interpretation of key implementation lessons. EMPOWER was funded in 2016, recruitment finished in January 2018. Data analysis is currently under way and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in December 2019.ConclusionsThe findings from this study will help identify implementation facilitators and barriers to EMPOWER. These insights will inform both upscaling decisions and optimization of a definitive trial.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN99559262; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN99559262.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/15634.

Project description:BackgroundManagers and professionals in health and social care are required to implement evidence-based methods. Despite this, they generally lack training in implementation. In clinical settings, implementation is often a team effort, so it calls for team training. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of the Building Implementation Capacity (BIC) intervention that targets teams of professionals, including their managers.MethodsA non-randomized design was used, with two intervention cases (each consisting of two groups). The longitudinal, mixed-methods evaluation included pre-post and workshop-evaluation questionnaires, and interviews following Kirkpatrick's four-level evaluation framework. The intervention was delivered in five workshops, using a systematic implementation method with exercises and practical working materials. To improve transfer of training, the teams' managers were included. Practical experiences were combined with theoretical knowledge, social interactions, reflections, and peer support.ResultsOverall, the participants were satisfied with the intervention (first level), and all groups increased their self-rated implementation knowledge (second level). The qualitative results indicated that most participants applied what they had learned by enacting new implementation behaviors (third level). However, they only partially applied the implementation method, as they did not use the planned systematic approach. A few changes in organizational results occurred (fourth level).ConclusionsThe intervention had positive effects with regard to the first two levels of the evaluation model; that is, the participants were satisfied with the intervention and improved their knowledge and skills. Some positive changes also occurred on the third level (behaviors) and fourth level (organizational results), but these were not as clear as the results for the first two levels. This highlights the fact that further optimization is needed to improve transfer of training when building teams' implementation capacity. In addition to considering the design of such interventions, the organizational context and the participants' characteristics may also need to be considered to maximize the chances that the learned skills will be successfully transferred to behaviors.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of iLead, a generic implementation leadership intervention: mixed-method preintervention-postintervention design.

Publications

Evaluation of iLead, a generic implementation leadership intervention: mixed-method preintervention-postintervention design.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets