Dataset Information

Facilitators and barriers to implementation of Alberta family integrated care (FICare) in level II neonatal intensive care units: a qualitative process evaluation substudy of a multicentre cluster-randomised controlled trial using the consolidated framework for implementation research.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the barriers and facilitators to implementing Alberta Family Integrated Care (AB-FICare [2019 Benzies]), a model of care for integrating parents into level II neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) care teams, from the perspective of healthcare providers (HCP) and hospital administrators.

Design

Qualitative process evaluation substudy.

Setting

Ten level II NICUs in six cities across Alberta, Canada.

Participants

HCP and hospital administrators (n=32) who were involved in the cluster-randomised controlled trial of AB-FICare in level II NICUs.

Methods

Post-implementation semi-structured interviews were conducted via phone or in-person. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to develop interview guides, code transcripts and analyse data.

Results

Key facilitators to implementation of AB-FICare included (1) a receptive implementation climate, (2) compatibility of the intervention with individual and organisational practices, (3) available resources and access to knowledge and information for HCP and hospital administrators, (4) engagement of key stakeholders across the organisation, (5) engagement of and outcomes for intervention participants, and (6) reflecting and evaluating on implementation progress and patient and family outcomes. Barriers were (1) design quality and packaging of the intervention, (2) relative priority of AB-FICare in relation to other initiatives, and (3) learning climate within the organisation. Mixed influences on implementation depending on contextual factors were coded to eight constructs: intervention source, cost, peer pressure, external policy and incentives, staff needs and resources, structural characteristics, organisational incentives and rewards, and knowledge, beliefs and attitudes.

Conclusions

The characteristics of an organisation and the implementation process had largely positive influences, which can be leveraged for implementation of AB-FICare in the NICU. We recommend site-specific consultations to mitigate barriers and assess how swing factors might impact implementation given the local context, with the goal that strategies can be put in place to manage their influence on implementation.

Trial registration number

NCT02879799.

SUBMITTER: Zanoni P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8524282 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundScreening, brief intervention, and referral (SBIR) is an evidence-based, comprehensive health promotion approach commonly implemented to reduce alcohol and substance use. Implementation research on SBIR demonstrate that patients find it acceptable, reduces hospital costs, and it is effective. However, SBIR implementation in hospital settings for multiple risk factors (fruit and vegetable consumption, physical activity, alcohol and tobacco use) is still emergent. More evidence is needed to guide SBIR implementation for multiple risk factors in hospital settings.ObjectiveTo explore the facilitators and barriers of SBIR implementation in a rural hospital using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).MethodsWe conducted a descriptive qualitative investigation consisting of both inductive and deductive analyses. We conducted virtual, semi-structured interviews, guided by the CFIR framework. All interviews were audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. NVivo 12 Pro was used to organize and code the raw data.ResultsA total of six key informant semi-structured interviews, ranging from 45 to 60 min, were carried out with members of the implementation support team and clinical implementers. Implementation support members reported that collaborating with health departments facilitated SBIR implementation by helping (a) align health promotion risk factors with existing guidelines; (b) develop training and educational resources for clinicians and patients; and (c) foster leadership buy-in. Conversely, clinical implementers reported several barriers to SBIR implementation including, increased and disrupted workflow due to SBIR-related documentation, a lack of knowledge on patients' readiness and motivation to change, as well as perceived patient stigma in relation to SBIR risk factors.ConclusionThe CFIR provided a comprehensive framework to gauge facilitators and barriers relating to SBIR implementation. Our pilot investigation revealed that future SBIR implementation must address organizational, clinical implementer, and patient readiness to implement SBIR at all phases of the implementation process in a hospital.

Project description:BackgroundMobile health (mHealth) solutions have proven to be effective in a wide range of patient outcomes and have proliferated over time. However, a persistent challenge of digital health technologies, including mHealth, is that they are characterized by early dropouts in clinical practice and struggle to be used outside experimental settings or on larger scales.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore barriers and enablers to the uptake of mHealth solutions used by patients with cancer undergoing treatment, using a theory-guided implementation science model, that is, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).MethodsA scoping literature review was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and ScienceDirect databases in March 2022. We selected studies that analyzed the development, evaluation, and implementation of mHealth solutions for patients with cancer that were used in addition to the standard of care. Only empirical designs (eg, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and qualitative studies) were considered. First, information on the study characteristics, patient population, app functionalities, and study outcomes was extracted. Then, the CFIR model was used as a practical tool to guide data collection and interpretation of evidence on mHealth uptake.ResultsOverall, 91 papers were included in the data synthesis. The selected records were mostly randomized controlled trials (26/91, 29%) and single-arm, noncomparative studies (52/91, 57%). Most of the apps (42/73, 58%) were designed for both patients and clinicians and could be used to support any type of cancer (29/73, 40%) and a range of oncological treatments. Following the CFIR scheme (intervention, outer setting, inner setting, individuals, process), multistakeholder co-design, codevelopment, and testing of mHealth interventions were identified as key enablers for later uptake. A variety of external drivers emerged, although the most relevant outer incentive fostering mHealth use was addressing patient needs. Among organizational factors likely to influence technology uptake, interoperability was the most prominent, whereas other providers' dimensions such as managerial attitudes or organizational culture were not systematically discussed. Technology-related impediments that could hamper the use of mHealth at the individual level were considered least often.ConclusionsThe hype surrounding mHealth in cancer care is hindered by several factors that can affect its use in real world and nonexperimental settings. Compared with the growing evidence on mHealth efficacy, knowledge to inform the uptake of mHealth solutions in clinical cancer care is still scarce. Although some of our findings are supported by previous implementation research, our analysis elaborates on the distinguishing features of mHealth apps and provides an integrated perspective on the factors that should be accounted for implementation efforts. Future syntheses should liaise these dimensions with strategies observed in successful implementation initiatives.

Project description:BACKGROUNDOver the last decade, paediatric palliative care teams (PPCTs) have been introduced to support children with life-limiting diseases and their families and to ensure continuity, coordination and quality of paediatric palliative care (PPC). However, implementing a PPCT into an organisation is a challenge. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators reported by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in primary, secondary or tertiary care for implementing a newly initiated multidisciplinary PPCT to bridge the gap between hospital and home.METHODSThe Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations (MIDI) was used to assess responses of 71 HCPs providing PPC to one or more of the 129 children included in a pilot study of a PPCT based at a university children's hospital. The MIDI (29 items) assessed barriers and facilitators to implementing the PPCT by using a 5-point scale (completely disagree to completely agree) and additional open-ended questions. Items to which ?20% of participants responded with 'totally disagree/disagree' and ?80% responded with 'agree/totally agree' were considered as barriers and facilitators, respectively. A general inductive approach was used for open-ended questions.RESULTSReported barriers to implementing a PPCT were related to the HCP's own organisation (e.g., no working arrangements related to use of the intervention [PPCT] registered, other organisational changes such as merger going on). Reported facilitators were mainly related to the intervention (correctness, simplicity, observability and relevancy) and the user scale (positive outcome expectations, patient satisfaction) and only once to the organisation scale (information accessibility). Additionally, HCPs expressed the need for clarity about tasks of the PPCT and reported having made a transition from feeling threatened by the PPCT to satisfaction about the PPCT.CONCLUSIONPositive experiences with the PPCT are a major facilitator for implementing a PPCT. Tailored organisational strategies such as working arrangements by management, concrete information about the PPCT itself and the type of support provided by the PPCT should be clearly communicated to involved HCPs to increase awareness about benefits of the PPCT and ensure a successful implementation. New PPCTs need protection and resources in their initial year to develop into experienced and qualified PPCTs.

Project description:BackgroundAlcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) is recommended to be implemented in primary care settings to intervene against hazardous/harmful drinking. However, studies showed that the uptake rate was low in many regions/countries. This systematic review presented current findings on the facilitators and barriers of SBI implemented by health professionals in primary care settings using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).MethodsWe included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method studies identified through four electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and Web of Science) from inception to June 2020. Included articles had to address barriers and facilitators of SBI implementation and provide sufficient details that the CFIR domains could be identified and data were abstracted using a standardized extraction form.ResultsA total of 74 studies published from 1985 to 2019 were finally analysed and summarized. The most common facilitators were knowledge and positive beliefs about SBI (characteristics of the individuals) and available resources (inner setting). In contrast, the most common barriers were cost related to implementing SBI (intervention characteristics), negative beliefs about SBI (characteristics of the individuals), and lack of self-efficacy in implementing SBI (characteristics of the individuals). It could be observed that factors related to the inner setting and characteristics of individuals were extensively studied whilst the process received the least attention.ConclusionsMost of the facilitators and barriers are modifiable. Additionally, most literature focused on various kinds of available assets to implement SBI. To promote the spread of SBI implementation, more high-quality studies on the implementation process are needed. This systematic review could serve as a reference framework for health authorities to devise strategies for improving the implementation of SBI in primary care settings.Trial registrationThis systematic review was registered in PROSPERO ( CRD42021258833 ).

Project description:BackgroundRobots in healthcare are gaining increasing attention; however, their implementation is challenging due to the complexity of both interventions themselves and the contexts in which they are implemented. The objective of this integrative review is to identify barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of robotic systems in nursing.MethodsArticles published from 2002 to 2019 reporting on projects to implement robotic devices in nursing care were searched on Medline (via PubMed), CINAHL and databases on funded research projects (Community Research and Development Information Services and Technische Informationsbibliothek) and in journals for robotic research in November 2017 and July 2019 for an update. No restrictions regarding study designs were imposed. All included articles underwent quality assessments with design-specific critical appraisal tools. Barriers to and facilitators of implementation were classified using the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions framework.ResultsAfter removing all duplicates, the search revealed 11 204 studies, of which 17 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the synthesis. The majority of the studies dealt with the implementation of robots designed to support individuals, either living at home or in nursing homes (n=11). The studies were conducted in Europe, the USA and New Zealand and were carried out in nursing homes, individual living environments, hospital units and laboratories. The quality of reporting and quality of evidence were low in most studies. The most frequently reported barriers were in socioeconomic and ethical domains and were within the implementation outcomes domain. The most frequently reported facilitators were related to the sociocultural context, implementation process and implementation strategies.DiscussionThis review identified barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of robotic devices in nursing within different dimensions. The results serve as a basis for the development of suitable implementation strategies to reduce potential barriers and promote the integration of elements to facilitate implementation.Prospero registration numberCRD42018073486.

Project description:BackgroundPersons living with HIV (PLHIV) receiving antiretroviral therapy have increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Integration of services for hypertension (HTN), the primary CVD risk factor, into HIV clinics is recommended in Uganda. Our prior work demonstrated multiple gaps in implementation of integrated HTN care along the HIV treatment cascade. In this study, we sought to explore barriers to and facilitators of integrating HTN screening and treatment into HIV clinics in Eastern Uganda.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study at three HIV clinics with low, intermediate, and high HTN care cascade performance, which we classified based on our prior work. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with health services managers, healthcare providers, and hypertensive PLHIV (n = 83). Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Three qualitative researchers used the deductive (CFIR-driven) method to develop relevant codes and themes. Ratings were performed to determine valence and strengths of each CFIR construct regarding influencing HTN/HIV integration.ResultsBarriers to HTN/HIV integration arose from six CFIR constructs: organizational incentives and rewards, available resources, access to knowledge and information, knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, self-efficacy, and planning. The barriers include lack of functional BP machines, inadequate supply of anti-hypertensive medicines, additional workload to providers for HTN services, PLHIV's inadequate knowledge about HTN care, sub-optimal knowledge, skills and self-efficacy of healthcare providers to screen and treat HTN, and inadequate planning for integrated HTN/HIV services.Relative advantage of offering HTN and HIV services in a one-stop centre, simplicity (non-complex nature) of HTN/HIV integrated care, adaptability, and compatibility of HTN care with existing HIV services are the facilitators for HTN/HIV integration. The remaining CFIR constructs were non-significant regarding influencing HTN/HIV integration.ConclusionUsing the CFIR, we have shown that while there are modifiable barriers to HTN/HIV integration, HTN/HIV integration is of interest to patients, healthcare providers, and managers. Improving access to HTN care among PLHIV will require overcoming barriers and capitalizing on facilitators using a health system strengthening approach. These findings are a springboard for designing contextually appropriate interventions for HTN/HIV integration in low- and middle-income countries.