Dataset Information

Learning needs assessment for multi-stakeholder implementation science training in LMIC settings: findings and recommendations.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite significant progress in the field of implementation science (IS), current training programs are inadequate to meet the global need, especially in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Even when training opportunities exist, there is a "knowledge-practice gap," where implementation research findings are not useful to practitioners in a field designed to bridge that gap. This is a critical challenge in LMICs where complex public health issues must be addressed. This paper describes results from a formal assessment of learning needs, priority topics, and delivery methods for LMIC stakeholders.

Methods

We first reviewed a sample of articles published recently in Implementation Science to identify IS stakeholders and assigned labels and definitions for groups with similar roles. We then employed a multi-step sampling approach and a random sampling strategy to recruit participants (n = 39) for a semi-structured interview that lasted 30-60 min. Stakeholders with inputs critical to developing training curricula were prioritized and selected for interviews. We created memos from audio-recorded interviews and used a deductively created codebook to conduct thematic analysis. We calculated kappa coefficients for each memo and used validation techniques to establish rigor including incorporating feedback from reviewers and member checking.

Results

Participants included program managers, researchers, and physicians working in over 20 countries, primarily LMICs. The majority had over 10 years of implementation experience but fewer than 5 years of IS experience. Three main themes emerged from the data, pertaining to past experience with IS, future IS training needs, and contextual issues. Most respondents (even with formal training) described their IS knowledge as basic or minimal. Preferences for future training were heterogeneous, but findings suggest that curricula must encompass a broader set of competencies than just IS, include mentorship/apprenticeship, and center the LMIC context.

Conclusion

While this work is the first systematic assessment of IS learning needs among LMIC stakeholders, findings reflect existing research in that current training opportunities may not meet the demand, trainings are too narrowly focused to meet the heterogeneous needs of stakeholders, and there is a need for a broader set of competencies that moves beyond only IS. Our research also demonstrates the timely and unique needs of developing appropriately scoped, accessible training and mentorship support within LMIC settings. Therefore, we propose the novel approach of intelligent swarming as a solution to help build IS capacity in LMICs through the lens of sustainability and equity.

SUBMITTER: Turner MW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8642989 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntegrating evidence-based innovations (EBIs) into sustained use is challenging; most implementations in health systems fail. Increasing frontline teams' quality improvement (QI) capability may increase the implementation readiness and success of EBI implementation.ObjectivesDevelop a QI training program ("Learn. Engage. Act. Process." (LEAP)) and evaluate its impact on frontline obesity treatment teams to improve treatment delivered within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).DesignThis was a pre-post evaluation of the LEAP program. MOVE! coordinators (N = 68) were invited to participate in LEAP; 24 were randomly assigned to four starting times. MOVE! coordinators formed teams to work on improvement aims. Pre-post surveys assessed team organizational readiness for implementing change and self-rated QI skills. Program satisfaction, assignment completion, and aim achievement were also evaluated.ParticipantsVHA facility-based MOVE! teams.InterventionsLEAP is a 21-week QI training program. Core components include audit and feedback reports, structured curriculum, coaching and learning community, and online platform.Main measuresOrganizational readiness for implementing change (ORIC); self-rated QI skills before and after LEAP; assignment completion and aim achievement; program satisfaction.Key resultsSeventeen of 24 randomized teams participated in LEAP. Participants' self-ratings across six categories of QI skills increased after completing LEAP (p< 0.0001). The ORIC measure showed no statistically significant change overall; the change efficacy subscale marginally improved (p < 0.08), and the change commitment subscale remained the same (p = 0.66). Depending on the assignment, 35 to 100% of teams completed the assignment. Nine teams achieved their aim. Most team members were satisfied or very satisfied (81-89%) with the LEAP components, 74% intended to continue using QI methods, and 81% planned to continue improvement work.ConclusionsLEAP is scalable and does not require travel or time away from clinical responsibilities. While QI skills improved among participating teams and most completed the work, they struggled to do so amid competing clinical priorities.

Project description:Introduction:Aberrant pharmacogenetic variants occur in a high proportion of people and might be relevant for the prescription of over 26 drugs in primary care. Early identification of patients who metabolize these drugs more rapidly or slowly than average could predict therapeutic effectivity and safety. Yet implementation of pharmacogenetics is progressing slowly. A high public health impact can potentially be achieved by increasing the proportion of people tested, when and where eligible according to clinical validity and utility. Methods:In this study we defined actions, roles, and responsibilities for implementation of pharmacogenetics in primary care in consultation with stakeholder groups, by using a three-step mixed-methods approach. First, to define barriers and facilitators, public pharmacists (n = 24), primary care physicians (n = 8), and patients (n = 21) participated in focus groups and face-to-face interviews. Second, a multidisciplinary expert meeting (n = 16) was organized to define desired actions, roles, and responsibilities. Third, an online Delphi Study (n = 18) was conducted to prioritize the designated actions. Results:For the integration of pharmacogenetics in primary care guidelines and practice, lack of evidence for clinical utility was mentioned as a main barrier. Furthermore, reimbursement, and facilitation of data registration and sharing were considered as key elements for future routine application of pharmacogenetic testing. Moreover, the division of roles and responsibilities, especially between general practitioners and pharmacists, is currently perceived as unclear. Sixteen actions in these four areas (clinical utility, reimbursement, data registration and sharing, and roles and responsibilities) were formulated and assigned to specific actors during the expert meeting. After ranking these 16 actions in the Delphi Study, nine actions remained pertinent, covering the four areas with at least one action. However, participants showed low agreement on the prioritization of the different actions, illustrating their different perspectives and the need to attune between them. Discussion:Stakeholders together were able to formulate required actions to achieve true integration of pharmacogenetics in primary care, but no consensus could be achieved on the prioritization of the actions. Coordination of the current independent initiatives by the different stakeholders could facilitate effective and efficient implementation of useful pharmacogenetics in primary care.

Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of this scoping review is to provide a synthesis of the available literature on implementation science in critical care settings. Specifically, we aimed to identify the evidence-based practices selected for implementation, the frequency and type of implementation strategies used to foster change, and the process and clinical outcomes associated with implementation.Data sourcesA librarian-assisted search was performed using three electronic databases.Study selectionArticles that reported outcomes aimed at disseminating, implementing, or sustaining an evidence-based intervention or practice, used established implementation strategies, and were conducted in a critical care unit were included.Data extractionTwo reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text of articles to determine eligibility. Data extraction was performed using customized fields established a priori within a systematic review software system.Data synthesisOf 1,707 citations, 82 met eligibility criteria. Studies included prospective research investigations, quality improvement projects, and implementation science trials. The most common practices investigated were use of a ventilator-associated pneumonia bundle, nutritional support protocols, and the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium Monitoring/Management, and Early Exercise/Mobility bundle. A variety of implementation strategies were used to facilitate evidence adoption, most commonly educational meetings, auditing and feedback, developing tools, and use of local opinion leaders. The majority of studies (76/82, 93%) reported using more than one implementation strategy. Few studies specifically used implementation science designs and frameworks to systematically evaluate both implementation and clinical outcomes.ConclusionsThe field of critical care has experienced slow but steady gains in the number of investigations specifically guided by implementation science. However, given the exponential growth of evidence-based practices and guidelines in this same period, much work remains to critically evaluate the most effective mechanisms to integrate and sustain these practices across diverse critical care settings and teams.