Dataset Information

Collaborating with health economists to advance implementation science: a qualitative study

ABSTRACT: Background Implementation research infrequently addresses economic factors, despite the importance of understanding the costs of implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs). Though partnerships with health economists have the potential to increase attention to economic factors within implementation science, barriers to forming these collaborations have been noted. This study investigated the experiences of health economists and implementation researchers who have partnered across disciplines to inform strategies to increase such collaborations. Methods A purposeful sampling approach was used to identify eight health economists and eight implementation researchers with experience participating in cross-disciplinary research. We used semi-structured interviews to gather information about participants’ experiences with collaborative research. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify core themes related to facilitators and barriers to collaborations. Results Health economists and implementation researchers voiced different perspectives on collaborative research, highlighting the importance of increasing cross-disciplinary understanding. Implementation researchers described a need to measure costs in implementation studies, whereas many health economists described that they seek to collaborate on projects that extend beyond conducting cost analyses. Researchers in both disciplines articulated motivations for collaborative research and identified strategies that promote successful collaboration, with varying degrees of convergence across these themes. Shared motivations included improving methodological rigor of research and making a real-world impact. Strategies to improve collaboration included starting partnerships early in the study design period, having a shared interest, and including health economists in the larger scope of the research. Conclusions Health economists and implementation researchers both conduct research with significant policy implications and have the potential to inform one another’s work in ways that might more rapidly advance the uptake of EBPs. Collaborative research between health economists and implementation science has the potential to advance the field; however, researchers will need to work to bridge disciplinary differences. By beginning to develop strong working relationships; increasing their understanding of one another’s disciplinary culture, methodology, and language; and increasing the role economists have within research design and execution, both implementation researchers and health economists can support successful collaborations and robust and informative research.

SUBMITTER: Barnett M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7523377 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough eMental health interventions are a viable solution to address disparities in access to mental healthcare and increase its efficiency, they still face challenges of implementation. Literature highlights numerous barriers such as diffusion of responsibility and unclear expectations of what implementation entails might hinder this process. While research mostly focuses on analyzing these barriers, there is an urgent need to increase uptake in practice. In turn, commercial companies focus mostly on increasing uptake, while overlooking research outputs. To bridge the gap between research and practice, attention to how implementation occurs in practice is required. This study investigates "Make it Happen" (MiH), the implementation model developed by the eMental Health company Minddistrict, aiming to gain more insight into operationalizing implementation frameworks by 1) describing MiH and its conceptual underpinnings, and 2) gaining lessons learned from the development of MiH. Ultimately, this work aims at improving existing scientific frameworks by extending them with knowledge from practice.MethodsFirst, individual interviews and focus groups with Minddistrict implementation managers were performed. Second, individual interviews with project leads in mental healthcare organizations that were involved in the implementation of Minddistrict were conducted. Within Minddistrict, 7 implementation managers and account managers were involved, in addition to 11 project leads from mental healthcare organizations. Data were elaborated with thematic analysis.ResultsA comprehensive description of MiH and its 5 main phases was achieved. During the 1) Onboarding phase, implementing organizations are guided by Minddistrict to build a team responsible for implementation, which then 2) designs patient and client journeys, 3) builds, tailors and configures their offer, 4) trains key-users and, 5) evaluates the success of implementation. All participants had extensive and aligned definitions and articulated expectations on implementation. Points of improvement for the model such as role ambiguity and excessive workload were identified. As strengths, internal motivation and good relationships with the provider were valued.ConclusionThe present study highlights the importance of clear role division and stakeholder engagement in implementation processes, and suggest that a strong collaboration between companies and academia could optimize implementation efforts and ensure a better fit between humans, context, and technologies.

Project description:BackgroundImplementation science seeks to enable change, underpinned by theories and frameworks such as the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Yet academia and frontline healthcare improvement remain largely siloed, with limited integration of implementation science methods into frontline improvement where the drivers include pragmatic, rapid change. Using the CIFR lens, we aimed to explore how pragmatic and complex healthcare improvement and implementation science can be integrated.MethodsOur research involved the investigation of a case study that was undertaking the implementation of an improvement intervention at a large public health service. Our research involved qualitative data collection methods of semi-structured interviews and non-participant observations of the implementation team delivering the intervention. Thematic analysis identified key themes from the qualitative data. We examined our themes through the lens of CFIR to gain in-depth understanding of how the CFIR components operated in a 'real-world' context.ResultsThe key themes emerging from our research outlined that leadership, context and process are the key components that dominate and affect the implementation process. Leadership which cultivates connections with front line clinicians, fosters engagement and trust. Navigating context was facilitated by 'bottom-up' governance. Multi-disciplinary and cross-sector capability were key processes that supported pragmatic and agile responses in a changing complex environment. Process reflected the theoretically-informed, and iterative implementation approach. Mapping CFIR domains and constructs, with these themes demonstrated close alignment with the CFIR. The findings bring further depth to CFIR. Our research demonstrates that leadership which has a focus on patient need as a key motivator to engage clinicians, which applies and ensures iterative processes which leverage contextual factors can achieve successful, sustained implementation and healthcare improvement outcomes.ConclusionsOur longitudinal study highlights insights that strengthen alignment between implementation science and pragmatic frontline healthcare improvement. We identify opportunities to enhance the relevance of CFIR in the 'real-world' setting through the interconnected nature of our themes. Our study demonstrates actionable knowledge to enhance the integration of implementation science in healthcare improvement.

Project description:BackgroundEthnographic approaches offer a method and a way of thinking about implementation. This manuscript applies a specific case study method to describe the impact of the longitudinal interplay between implementation stakeholders. Growing out of science and technology studies (STS) and drawing on the latent archaeological sensibilities implied by ethnographic methods, the STS case-study is a tool for implementors to use when a piece of material culture is an essential component of an innovation.MethodsWe conducted an ethnographic process evaluation of the clinical implementation of tele-critical care (Tele-CC) services in the Department of Veterans Affairs. We collected fieldnotes and conducted participant observation at virtual and in-person education and planning events (n = 101 h). At Go-Live and 6-months post-implementation, we conducted site visits to the Tele-CC hub and 3 partnered ICUs. We led semi-structured interviews with ICU staff at Go-Live (43 interviews with 65 participants) and with ICU and Tele-CC staff 6-months post-implementation (44 interviews with 67 participants). We used verification strategies, including methodological coherence, appropriate sampling, collecting and analyzing data concurrently, and thinking theoretically, to ensure the reliability and validity of our data collection and analysis process.ResultsThe STS case-study helped us realize that we must think differently about how a Tele-CC clinician could be noticed moving from communal to intimate space. To understand how perceptions of surveillance impacted staff acceptance, we mapped the materials through which surveillance came to matter in the stories staff told about cameras, buttons, chimes, motors, curtains, and doorbells.ConclusionsSTS case-studies contribute to the literature on longitudinal qualitive research (LQR) in implementation science, including pen portraits and periodic reflections. Anchored by the material, the heterogeneity of an STS case-study generates questions and encourages exploring differences. Begun early enough, the STS case-study method, like periodic reflections, can serve to iteratively inform data collection for researchers and implementors. The next step is to determine systematically how material culture can reveal implementation barriers and direct attention to potential solutions that address tacit, deeply rooted challenges to innovations in practice and technology.

Project description:BackgroundImplementing new practices, such as health information technology (HIT), is often difficult due to the disruption of the highly coordinated, interdependent processes (e.g., information exchange, communication, relationships) of providing care in hospitals. Thus, HIT implementation may occur slowly as staff members observe and make sense of unexpected disruptions in care. As a critical organizational function, sensemaking, defined as the social process of searching for answers and meaning which drive action, leads to unified understanding, learning, and effective problem solving -- strategies that studies have linked to successful change. Project teamwork is a change strategy increasingly used by hospitals that facilitates sensemaking by providing a formal mechanism for team members to share ideas, construct the meaning of events, and take next actions.MethodsIn this longitudinal case study, we aim to examine project teams' sensemaking and action as the team prepares to implement new information technology in a tiertiary care hospital. Based on management and healthcare literature on HIT implementation and project teamwork, we chose sensemaking as an alternative to traditional models for understanding organizational change and teamwork. Our methods choices are derived from this conceptual framework. Data on project team interactions will be prospectively collected through direct observation and organizational document review. Through qualitative methods, we will identify sensemaking patterns and explore variation in sensemaking across teams. Participant demographics will be used to explore variation in sensemaking patterns.DiscussionOutcomes of this research will be new knowledge about sensemaking patterns of project teams, such as: the antecedents and consequences of the ongoing, evolutionary, social process of implementing HIT; the internal and external factors that influence the project team, including team composition, team member interaction, and interaction between the project team and the larger organization; the ways in which internal and external factors influence project team processes; and the ways in which project team processes facilitate team task accomplishment. These findings will lead to new methods of implementing HIT in hospitals.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Most low and middle income countries (LMICs) are currently not on track to reach the health-related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). One way to accelerate progress would be through the large-scale implementation of evidence-based health tools and interventions. This study aimed to: (a) explore the barriers that have impeded such scale-up in LMICs, and (b) lay out an "implementation research agenda"--a series of key research questions that need to be addressed in order to help overcome such barriers. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with fourteen key informants, all of whom are academic leaders in the field of implementation science, who were purposively selected for their expertise in scaling up in LMICs. Interviews were transcribed by hand and manually coded to look for emerging themes related to the two study aims. Barriers to scaling up, and unanswered research questions, were organized into six categories, representing different components of the scaling up process: attributes of the intervention; attributes of the implementers; scale-up approach; attributes of the adopting community; socio-political, fiscal, and cultural context; and research context. RESULTS: Factors impeding the success of scale-up that emerged from the key informant interviews, and which are areas for future investigation, include: complexity of the intervention and lack of technical consensus; limited human resource, leadership, management, and health systems capacity; poor application of proven diffusion techniques; lack of engagement of local implementers and of the adopting community; and inadequate integration of research into scale-up efforts. CONCLUSIONS: Key steps in expanding the evidence base on implementation in LMICs include studying how to: simplify interventions; train "scale-up leaders" and health workers dedicated to scale-up; reach and engage communities; match the best delivery strategy to the specific health problem and context; and raise the low profile of implementation science.

Dataset Information

Collaborating with health economists to advance implementation science: a qualitative study

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets