Dataset Information

Implementing at-birth, point-of-care HIV testing in Kenya: a qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

ABSTRACT:

Background

At-birth and point-of-care (POC) testing can expedite early infant diagnosis of HIV and improve infant outcomes. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), this study describes the implementation of an at-birth POC testing pilot from the perspective of implementing providers and identifies the factors that might support and hinder the scale up of these promising interventions.

Methods

We conducted 28 focus group discussions (FGDs) with 48 providers across 4 study sites throughout the course of a pilot study assessing the feasibility and impact of at-birth POC testing. FGDs were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for a priori themes related to CFIR constructs. This qualitative study was nested within a larger study to pilot and evaluate at-birth and POC HIV testing.

Results

Out of the 39 CFIR constructs, 30 were addressed in the FGDs. While all five domains were represented, major themes revolved around constructs related to intervention characteristics, inner setting, and outer setting. Regarding intervention characteristics, the advantages of at-birth POC (rapid turnaround time resulting in improved patient management and enhanced patient motivation) were significant enough to encourage provider uptake and enthusiasm. Challenges at the intervention level (machine breakdown, processing errors), inner settings (workload, limited leadership engagement, challenges with access to information), and outer setting (patient-level challenges, limited engagement with outer setting stakeholders) hindered implementation, frustrated providers, and resulted in missed opportunities for testing. Providers discussed how throughout the course of the study adaptations to implementation (improved channels of communication, modified implementation logistics) were made to overcome some of these challenges. To improve implementation, providers cited the need for enhanced training and for greater involvement among stakeholders outside of the implementing team (i.e., other clinicians, hospital administrators and implementing partners, county and national health officials). Despite provider enthusiasm for the intervention, providers felt that the lack of engagement from leadership within the hospital and in the outer setting would preclude sustained implementation outside of a research setting.

Conclusion

Despite demonstrated feasibility and enthusiasm among implementing providers, the lack of outer setting support makes sustained implementation of at-birth POC testing unlikely at this time. The findings highlight the multi-dimensional aspect of implementation and the need to consider facilitators and barriers within each of the five CFIR domains.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03435887 . Retrospectively registered on 19 February 2020.

SUBMITTER: Wexler C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8359118 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImplementation frameworks may support local implementation strategies with a sound theoretical foundation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) facilitates identification of contextual barriers and facilitators, and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) allows identifying adequate implementation strategies. Both instruments are already used in German-speaking countries; however, no standardised and validated translation is available thus far. The aim of this study was to translate the CFIR and ERIC framework into German, in order to increase the use of these frameworks and the adherence to evidence-based implementation efforts in German-speaking countries.MethodsThe translation of the original versions of the CFIR and ERIC framework was guided by the World Health Organisation's recommendations for the process of translating and adapting both conceptual frameworks. Accordingly, a four-step process was employed: first, forward translation from English into German was conducted by a research team of German native speakers with fluent knowledge of the English language. Second, a bilingual expert panel comprising one researcher with German as his mother tongue and expert command of the English language and one English language expert and university teacher reviewed the translation and discussed inconsistencies with the initial translators. Third, back-translation into English was conducted by an English native speaking researcher. The final version was pre-tested with 12 German researchers and clinicians who were involved in implementation projects using cognitive interviews.ResultsThe translation and review process revealed some inconsistencies between the original version and the German translations. All issues could be solved by discussion. Central aspects of the items were confirmed in 60 to 70% of the items, and modifications were proposed in 30% of the items. Finally, we revised one CFIR-item heading after pre-testing. The final version was given consent by all involved parties.ConclusionsNow, two validated and tested implementation frameworks to guide implementation efforts are available in the German language and can be used to increase the application of agreed-on implementation strategies into practice.

Project description:BackgroundQualitative approaches, alone or in mixed methods, are prominent within implementation science. However, traditional qualitative approaches are resource intensive, which has led to the development of rapid qualitative approaches. Published rapid approaches are often inductive in nature and rely on transcripts of interviews. We describe a deductive rapid analysis approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) that uses notes and audio recordings. This paper compares our rapid versus traditional deductive CFIR approach.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted for two cohorts of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE). The CFIR guided data collection and analysis. In cohort A, we used our traditional CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where two analysts completed independent in-depth manual coding of interview transcripts using qualitative software. In cohort B, we used our new rapid CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where the primary analyst wrote detailed notes during interviews and immediately "coded" notes into a MS Excel CFIR construct by facility matrix; a secondary analyst then listened to audio recordings and edited the matrix. We tracked time for our traditional and rapid deductive CFIR approaches using a spreadsheet and captured transcription costs from invoices. We retrospectively compared our approaches in terms of effectiveness and rigor.ResultsCohorts A and B were similar in terms of the amount of data collected. However, our rapid deductive CFIR approach required 409.5 analyst hours compared to 683 h during the traditional deductive CFIR approach. The rapid deductive approach eliminated $7250 in transcription costs. The facility-level analysis phase provided the greatest savings: 14 h/facility for the traditional analysis versus 3.92 h/facility for the rapid analysis. Data interpretation required the same number of hours for both approaches.ConclusionOur rapid deductive CFIR approach was less time intensive and eliminated transcription costs, yet effective in meeting evaluation objectives and establishing rigor. Researchers should consider the following when employing our approach: (1) team expertise in the CFIR and qualitative methods, (2) level of detail needed to meet project aims, (3) mode of data to analyze, and (4) advantages and disadvantages of using the CFIR.

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore the process of implementation of an online health information web-based portal and referral system (HealthPathways) using implementation science theory: the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).SettingSouthern Health Region of New Zealand (Otago and Southland).ParticipantsKey Informants (providers and planners of healthcare) (n=10) who were either involved in the process of implementing HealthPathways or who were intended end-users of HealthPathways.MethodsSemistructured interviews were undertaken. A deductive thematic analysis using CFIR was conducted using the framework method.ResultsCFIR postulates that for an intervention to be implemented successfully, account must be taken of the intervention's core components and the adaptable periphery. The core component of HealthPathways-the web portal and referral system that contains a large number of localised clinical care pathways-had been addressed well by the product developers. Little attention had, however, been paid to addressing the adaptable periphery (adaptable elements, structures and systems related to HealthPathways and the organisation into which it was being implemented); it was seen as sufficient just to deliver the web portal and referral system and the set of clinical care pathways as developed to effect successful implementation. In terms of CFIR's 'inner setting' corporate and professional cultures, the implementation climate and readiness for implementation were not properly addressed during implementation. There were also multiple failures of the implementation process (eg, lack of planning and engagement with clinicians). As a consequence, implementation of HealthPathways was highly problematic.ConclusionsThe use of CFIR has furthered our understanding of the factors needed for the successful implementation of a complex health intervention (HealthPathways) in the New Zealand health system. Those charged with implementing complex health interventions should always consider the local context within which they will be implemented and tailor their implementation strategy to address these.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Preventing the onset of poor mental health in adolescence is an international public health priority. Universal, whole school preventative approaches are valued for their reach, and anti-stigmatising and resilience building principles. Mindfulness approaches to well-being have the potential to be effective when delivered as a whole school approach for both young people and staff. However, despite growing demand, there is little understanding of possible and optimal ways to implement a mindfulness, whole school approach (M-WSA) to well-being. This study aimed to identify the determinants of early implementation success of a M-WSA. We tested the capacity of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to capture the determinants of the implementation of a mental health intervention in a school setting. METHODS:Key members of school staff (n?=?15) from five UK secondary schools attempting to implement a M-WSA were interviewed at two-time points, 6 months apart, generating a total of 30 interviews. Interviews explored participants' attitudes, beliefs and experiences around implementing a M-WSA. Interview data were coded as CFIR constructs or other (non CFIR) factors affecting implementation. We also mapped school-reported implementation activity and perceived success over 30?months. RESULTS:The CFIR captured the implementation activities and challenges well, with 74% of CFIR constructs identifiable in the dataset. Of the 38 CFIR constructs, 11 appeared to distinguish between high and low implementation schools. The most essential construct was school leadership. It strongly distinguished between high and low implementation schools and appeared inter-related with many other distinguishing constructs. Other strongly distinguishing constructs included relative priority, networks and communications, formally appointed implementation leaders, knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, and executing. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest key implementation constructs that schools, commissioners and policy makers should focus on to promote successful early implementation of mental health programs. School leadership is a key construct to target at the outset. The CFIR appears useful for assessing the implementation of mental health programs in UK secondary schools.

Project description:BackgroundInterprofessional primary care teams have been introduced across Canada to improve access (e.g., a regular primary care provider, timely access to care when needed) to and quality of primary care. However, the quality and speed of team implementation has not kept pace with increasing access issues. The aim of this research was to use an implementation framework to categorize and describe barriers and enablers to team implementation in primary care.MethodsA narrative review that prioritized systematic reviews and evidence syntheses was conducted. A search using pre-defined terms was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, and potentially relevant grey literature was identified through ad hoc Google searches and hand searching of health organization websites. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to categorize barriers and enablers into five domains: (1) Features of Team Implementation; (2) Government, Health Authorities and Health Organizations; (3) Characteristics of the Team; (4) Characteristics of Team Members; and (5) Process of Implementation.ResultsData were extracted from 19 of 435 articles that met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Most barriers and enablers were categorized into two domains of the CFIR: Characteristics of the Team and Government, Health Authorities, and Health Organizations. Key themes identified within the Characteristics of the Team domain were team-leadership, including designating a manager responsible for day-to-day activities and facilitating collaboration; clear governance structures, and technology supports and tools that facilitate information sharing and communication. Key themes within the Government, Health Authorities, and Health Organizations domain were professional remuneration plans, regulatory policy, and interprofessional education. Other key themes identified in the Features of Team Implementation included the importance of good data and research on the status of teams, as well as sufficient and stable funding models. Positive perspectives, flexibility, and feeling supported were identified in the Characteristics of Team Members domain. Within the Process of Implementation domain, shared leadership and human resources planning were discussed.ConclusionsBarriers and enablers to implementing interprofessional primary care teams using the CFIR were identified, which enables stakeholders and teams to tailor implementation of teams at the local level to impact the accessibility and quality of primary care.

Project description:BackgroundMany interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts.MethodsWe used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts.ResultsThe CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct.ConclusionThe CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.