Dataset Information

A Digital Patient-Provider Communication Intervention (InvolveMe): Qualitative Study on the Implementation Preparation Based on Identified Facilitators and Barriers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Chronic health conditions are affecting an increasing number of individuals, who experience various symptoms that decrease their quality of life. Digital communication interventions that enable patients to report their symptoms have been shown to positively impact chronic disease management by improving access to care, patient-provider communication, clinical outcomes, and health-related quality of life. These interventions have the potential to prepare patients and health care providers (HCPs) before visits and improve patient-provider communication. Despite the recent rapid development and increasing number of digital communication interventions that have shown positive research results, barriers to realizing the benefits offered through these types of interventions still exist.

Objective

The aim of this study is to prepare for the implementation of a digital patient-provider communication intervention in the daily workflow at 2 outpatient clinics by identifying potential determinants of implementation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to tailor the use of digital communication intervention to the intended context and identify key aspects for an implementation plan.

Methods

A combination of focus groups, workshops, and project steering committee meetings was conducted with HCPs (n=14) and patients (n=2) from 2 outpatient clinics at a university hospital. The CFIR was used to guide data collection and analysis. Transcripts, written minutes, and notes were analyzed and coded into 5 CFIR domains using thematic analysis.

Results

Data were examined and analyzed into 18 CFIR constructs relevant to the study purpose. On the basis of the identified determinants, important intervention tailoring includes adjustments to the digital features and adjustments to fit the clinical workflow and a decision to conduct a future pilot study. Furthermore, it was decided to provide the intervention to patients as early as possible in their disease trajectory, with tailored information about its use. Key aspects for the implementation plan encompassed maintaining the identified engagement and positive attitude, involving key stakeholders in the implementation process, and providing the needed support and training.

Conclusions

This study offers insight into the involvement of stakeholders in the tailoring and implementation planning of a digital communication intervention in clinical practice. Stakeholder involvement in the identification of implementation facilitators and barriers can contribute to the tailoring of digital communication interventions and how they are used and can also inform systematic and targeted implementation planning.

SUBMITTER: Seljelid B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8294341 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough there is growing evidence of the positive effects of Internet-based patient-provider communication (IPPC) services for both patients and health care providers, their implementation into clinical practice continues to be a challenge.ObjectiveThe 3 aims of this study were to (1) identify and compare barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of an IPPC service in 5 hospital units using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), (2) assess the ability of the different constructs of CFIR to distinguish between high and low implementation success, and (3) compare our findings with those from other studies that used the CFIR to discriminate between high and low implementation success.MethodsThis study was based on individual interviews with 10 nurses, 6 physicians, and 1 nutritionist who had used the IPPC to answer messages from patients.ResultsOf the 36 CFIR constructs, 28 were addressed in the interviews, of which 12 distinguished between high and low implementation units. Most of the distinguishing constructs were related to the inner setting domain of CFIR, indicating that institutional factors were particularly important for successful implementation. Health care providers' beliefs in the intervention as useful for themselves and their patients as well as the implementation process itself were also important. A comparison of constructs across ours and 2 other studies that also used the CFIR to discriminate between high and low implementation success showed that 24 CFIR constructs distinguished between high and low implementation units in at least 1 study; 11 constructs distinguished in 2 studies. However, only 2 constructs (patient need and resources and available resources) distinguished consistently between high and low implementation units in all 3 studies.ConclusionsThe CFIR is a helpful framework for illuminating barriers and facilitators influencing IPPC implementation. However, CFIR's strength of being broad and comprehensive also limits its usefulness as an implementation framework because it does not discriminate between the relative importance of its many constructs for implementation success. This is the first study to identify which CFIR constructs are the most promising to distinguish between high and low implementation success across settings and interventions. Findings from this study can contribute to the refinement of CFIR toward a more succinct and parsimonious framework for planning and evaluation of the implementation of clinical interventions.ClinicaltrialClinicaltrials.gov NCT00971139; http://clinicaltrial.gov/ct2/show/NCT00971139 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6cWeqN1uY).

Project description:ObjectiveA prerequisite for patient-centredness in healthcare organisations is offering patients access to adequate health information, which fits their needs. A personalised digital care pathway (PDCP) is a tool that facilitates the provision of tailored and timely information. Despite its potential, barriers influence the implementation of digital tools in healthcare organisations. Therefore, we investigated the perceived barriers and facilitators for implementation of the PDCP among stakeholders.DesignA qualitative study was conducted to acquire insight into perceptions of the stakeholders involved in the implementation of a digital care pathway in three diverse patient groups.SettingThis study is part of the PDCP research project in a large academic hospital in the Netherlands.ParticipantsPurposive sampling was used to recruit internal stakeholders (eg, healthcare professionals, employees of the supporting departments) and external stakeholders (eg, employees of the external PDCP supplier). In addition, existing semistructured interviews with patients involved in pilot implementation (n=24) were used to verify the findings.ResultsWe conducted 25 semistructured interviews using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Content analyses yielded four themes: (1) stakeholders' perceptions of the PDCP (eg, perceived usefulness); (2) characteristics of the individuals involved and the implementation process (eg, individuals express resistance to change); (3) organisational readiness (eg, lack of resources); and (4) collaboration within the organisation (eg, mutual communication, multidisciplinary codesign). The main barriers mentioned by patients were duration of first activation and necessity for up-to-date content. In addition, the most facilitating factor for patients was user-friendliness.ConclusionOur findings emphasise the importance of gaining insights into the various perspectives of stakeholder groups, including patients, regarding the implementation of the PDCP. The perceived barriers and facilitators can be used to improve the PDCP implementation plan and tailor the development and improvement of other digital patient communication tools.

Project description:BackgroundSedentary behavior is associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. To reduce occupational sitting time of office workers, the multi-component intervention 'Dynamic Work' was implemented in a Dutch insurance company. Although the results showed no significant reductions in sitting time, associations were found between higher levels of implementation and reductions in sitting time. Building upon these findings, this qualitative study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators from an organizational perspective for the implementation of Dynamic Work. In addition, we explored differences in barriers and facilitators between departments with a low, middle and high level of implementation.MethodsIn total, eighteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with two Dynamic Work coordinators, three occupational physiotherapists who delivered the intervention, and thirteen department managers. All participants were purposively sampled. The data was coded in Atlas.ti and a thematic analysis was performed guided by The Integrated Checklist of Determinants (TICD).ResultsImplementation factors were related to the organization; working culture and financial support facilitated implementation. Factors related to the implementing department mainly hindered implementation, i.e. lack of information at start of the project, late delivery of Dynamic Work equipment, large group sizes, employee's workload and work tasks, and an ongoing reorganization. The facilitating role of managers was experienced as both enabling and hindering. The pre-existing familiarity of the occupational physiotherapists with the departments and alignment amongst the three implementers facilitated implementation. Yet, the non-obligatory nature of the intervention as well as limited availability and technical problems of equipment did not support implementation.ConclusionsVarious barriers and facilitators influenced the implementation of the Dynamic Work intervention, where the key role of the department manager, late delivery of dynamic work equipment and groups sizes varied between low and high implementing departments. These results can contribute to developing and improving implementation strategies in order to increase the effectiveness of future occupational health interventions.Trial registrationThe study protocol was registered on April 14, 2017 in the ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System under registration number NCT03115645 .

Project description:ObjectiveCommunication failures between clinicians lead to poor patient outcomes. Critically injured patients have multiple injured organ systems and require complex multidisciplinary care from a wide range of healthcare professionals and communication failures are abundantly common. This study sought to determine barriers and facilitators to interdisciplinary communication between the consulting trauma, intensive care unit (ICU) team and specialty consultants for critically injured patients at an urban, safety-net, level 1 trauma centre.DesignAn observational qualitative study of barriers and facilitators to interdisciplinary communication.SettingWe conducted observations of daily rounds in two trauma surgical ICUs and recorded the most frequently consulted teams.ParticipantsKey informant interviews after presenting clinical vignettes as discussion prompts were conducted with a broad range of clinicians from the ICUs and physicians and nurse practitioners from the consultant teams who were identified during the observations. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data of these 10 interviews were combined with primary transcript data from prior study (25 interviews) and analysed together because of the same setting with same themes. Independent coding of the transcripts, with iterative reconciliation, was performed by two coders.Outcomes measuresFacilitators and barriers of interdisciplinary communication were identified.ResultsA total of 35 interview transcripts were analysed. Cardiology and interventional radiology were the most frequently consulted teams. Consulting and consultant clinicians reported that perceived accessibility from the team seeking a consultation and the consultant team impacted interdisciplinary communication. Accessibility had a physical dimension as well as a psychological dimension. Accessibility was demonstrated by responsiveness between clinicians of different disciplines and in turn facilitated interdisciplinary communication. Social norms, cognitive biases, hierarchy and relationships were reported as both facilitators and barriers to accessibility, and therefore, interdisciplinary communication.ConclusionAccessibility impacted interdisciplinary communication between the consulting and the consultant team.Article summaryElucidates barriers and facilitators to interdisciplinary communication between consulting and consultant teams.

Project description:BackgroundThere is an urgent need to align human diets with goals for environmental sustainability and population health. The OPTIMAT™-intervention study was developed to implement and evaluate a nutritionally adequate and climate-friendly 4-week lunch menu in Swedish primary schools. This study aimed to explore pupils' and kitchen staff's experiences of the intervention and to identify barriers and facilitators to successful implementation of sustainable school meals.MethodsAn inductive manifest qualitative method was used. Nine focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted, six with pupils in grades 5 (ages 10-11) and 8 (ages 14-15) (n = 29) and three with kitchen staff (n = 13). Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.ResultsFive main categories and 11 subcategories at a manifest level emerged. The five main categories were: 1) Experiences with the new menu, unfolding variations in how the new menu was received and kitchen staff's experiences of working with it; 2) The meaning of diet sustainability, comprising pupils' and kitchen staff's perceptions about diet sustainability as a concept and part of their everyday lives; 3) Factors influencing plant-based food acceptance, covering aspects such as the influence of sensory factors, habits and peer pressure; 4) Opportunities to increase plant-based eating, including factors related to pupils' and kitchen staff's ideas for how to increase plant-based food acceptance; and 5) Need for a supportive environment to achieve dietary change, comprising pupils' and kitchen staff's thoughts on the importance of more knowledge, resources and involvement of stakeholders to eat more plant-based meals in schools.ConclusionsSuccessful implementation of sustainable school meals would require more knowledge among pupils and kitchen staff. Staff also need more training in cooking of sustainable meals. Barriers among pupils could be tackled by introducing new plant-based meals more gradually and by more carefully considering the seasoning, naming and aesthetics of dishes. An increased leadership support for change and involvement of stakeholders from multiple levels within society will be key in the transition to sustainable school meals at scale.Trial registrationThe trial registration for the OPTIMAT™-intervention may be found at clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT04168632 Fostering Healthy and Sustainable Diets Through School Meals (OPTIMAT)).

Project description:Introduction/purposeDue to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many in-person cancer exercise and rehabilitation programs necessarily transitioned to virtual formats to meet the needs of individuals living with and beyond cancer. The purpose of this study was to qualitatively assess program-level facilitators and barriers to virtual exercise program implementation and to identify preferred strategies to overcome implementation barriers.MethodsUS-based virtual cancer exercise and rehabilitation programs were recruited from professional networks via an emailed screening questionnaire. Eligible programs identified a point of contact for a 1:1 semi-structured interview to discuss program-level barriers and facilitators to implementing virtual exercise programs. Interview transcript analysis was conducted via inductive coding techniques using NVivo software. Barriers were categorized according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and a prioritized list of strategies to support implementation was created by mapping barriers to a list of Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change.ResultsOf the 41 unique responses received, 24 program representatives completed semi-structured interviews. Interviewees represented individual programs, community-based programs, and hospital-based cancer exercise/rehabilitation programs. Analysis showed high correlation between facilitators and barriers by program type, with both program- and individual-level strategies used to implement exercise programs virtually. Strategies that ranked highest to support implementation include promoting program adaptability, building a coalition of stakeholders and identifying program champions, developing an implementation blueprint, altering organizational incentives and allowances, providing education across stakeholder groups, and accessing funding.ConclusionsLearning from the transition of cancer exercise and rehabilitation programs to virtual formats due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we identify program-level barriers and facilitators encountered in the implementation of virtual programs and highlight implementation strategies that are most relevant to overcome common barriers. We present a roadmap for programs to use these strategies for future work in virtual exercise and rehabilitation program implementation.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the high prevalence of alcohol use disorders (AUDs), in 2016, only 7.8% of individuals meeting diagnostic criteria received any type of AUD treatment. Developing options for treatment within primary care settings is imperative to increase treatment access. As part of a trial to implement AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care settings, this qualitative study analyzed pre-implementation provider interviews using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify implementation barriers.MethodsThree large Veterans Health Administration facilities participated in the implementation intervention. Local providers were trained to serve as implementation/clinical champions and received external facilitation from the project team. Primary care providers received a dashboard of patients with AUD for case identification, educational materials, and access to consultation from clinical champions. Veterans with AUD diagnoses received educational information in the mail. Prior to the start of implementation activities, 24 primary care providers (5-10 per site) participated in semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using common coding techniques for qualitative data using the CFIR codebook Innovation/Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, and Characteristics of Individuals domains. Number and type of barriers identified were compared to quantitative changes in AUD pharmacotherapy prescribing rates.ResultsFour major barriers emerged across all three sites: complexity of providing AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care, the limited compatibility of AUD treatment with existing primary care processes, providers' limited knowledge and negative beliefs about AUD pharmacotherapy and providers' negative attitudes toward patients with AUD. Site specific barriers included lack of relative advantage of providing AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care over current practice, complaints about the design quality and packaging of implementation intervention materials, limited priority of addressing AUD in primary care and limited available resources to implement AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care.ConclusionsCFIR constructs were useful for identifying pre-implementation barriers that informed refinements to the implementation intervention. The number and type of pre-implementation barriers identified did not demonstrate a clear relationship to the degree to which sites were able to improve AUD pharmacotherapy prescribing rate. Site-level implementation process factors such as leadership support and provider turn-over likely also interacted with pre-implementation barriers to drive implementation outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundSubstantial proliferation of eHealth has enabled a move in patient-centred cancer care from the traditional in-person care model to real-time, dynamic, and technology supported on-demand care. However, in general, the uptake of these innovations is low. Studies show that eHealth is helpful in providing patient empowerment through e.g. providing high quality and timely information, enabling self-monitoring and shared decision making, but dropout rates are high and guidance for optimal implementation is lacking.AimTo explore barriers to and facilitators for nationwide implementation and consolidation of CMyLife, a multi-component, patient-centred, digital care platform, and to construct a comprehensive implementation guide for launching digital care platforms in daily clinical practice.MethodsThe first qualitative case study of a digital care platform like CMyLife was performed including five focus group- and eighteen in-depth interviews with stakeholders. Data were collected using a semi-structured interview guide, based on the frameworks of Grol and Flottorp. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed and barriers and facilitators were identified and categorized according to the frameworks. An iterative process including participation of main stakeholders and using the CFIR-ERIC framework led to creating a comprehensive implementation guide for digital care platforms.ResultsIn total, 45 barriers and 41 facilitators were identified. Main barriers were lack of connectivity between information technology systems, changing role for both health care providers and patients, insufficient time and resources, doubts about privacy and security of data, and insufficient digital skills of users. Main facilitators mentioned were motivating patients and health care providers by clarifying the added value of use of a digital care platform, clear business case with vision, demonstrating (cost) effectiveness, using an implementation guide, and educating patients and health care providers about how to use CMyLife. Based on these barriers and facilitators a clear and comprehensive implementation guide was developed for digital care platforms.ConclusionSeveral barriers to and facilitators for implementation were identified, a clear overview was presented, and a unique comprehensive implementation guide was developed for launching future digital care platforms in daily clinical practice. The next step is to validate the implementation guide in other (oncological) diseases.