Dataset Information

Evaluating the delivery of Problem Management Plus in primary care settings in rural Rwanda: a study protocol using a pragmatic randomised hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation design.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Evidence-based low-intensity psychological interventions such as Problem Management Plus (PM+) have the potential to expand treatment access for depression and anxiety, yet these interventions are not yet effectively implemented in rural, public health systems in resource-limited settings. In 2017, Partners In Health adapted PM+ for delivery by primary care nurses in rural Rwanda and began integrating PM+ into health centres in collaboration with the Rwandan Ministry of Health, using established implementation strategies for mental health integration into primary care (Mentoring and Enhanced Supervision at Health Centers for Mental Health (MESH MH)). A gap in the evidence regarding whether low-intensity psychological interventions can be successfully integrated into real-world primary care settings and improve outcomes for common mental disorders remains. In this study, we will rigorously evaluate the delivery of PM+ by primary care nurses, supported by MESH MH, as it is scaled across one rural district in Rwanda.

Methods and analysis

We will conduct a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation study to test the clinical outcomes of routinely delivered PM+ and to describe the implementation of PM+ at health centres. To study the clinical effectiveness of PM+, we will use a pragmatic, randomised multiple baseline design to determine whether participants experience improvement in depression symptoms (measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9) and functioning (measured by the WHO-Disability Assessment Scale Brief 2.0) after receiving PM+. We will employ quantitative and qualitative methods to describe and evaluate PM+ implementation outcomes using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework, using routinely collected programme data and semistructured interviews.

Ethics and dissemination

This evaluation was approved by the Rwanda National Ethics Committee (Protocol #196/RNEC/2019) and deemed exempt by the Harvard University Institutional Review Board. The results from this evaluation will be useful for health systems planners and policy-makers working to translate the evidence base for low-intensity psychological interventions into practice.

SUBMITTER: Smith SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8647529 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Implementation research is concerned with bridging the gap between evidence and practice through the study of methods to promote the uptake of research into routine practice. Good quality evidence has been summarised into guideline recommendations to show that peri-operative fasting times could be considerably shorter than patients currently experience. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of three strategies for the implementation of recommendations about peri-operative fasting.A pragmatic cluster randomised trial underpinned by the PARIHS framework was conducted during 2006 to 2009 with a national sample of UK hospitals using time series with mixed methods process evaluation and cost analysis. Hospitals were randomised to one of three interventions: standard dissemination (SD) of a guideline package, SD plus a web-based resource championed by an opinion leader, and SD plus plan-do-study-act (PDSA). The primary outcome was duration of fluid fast prior to induction of anaesthesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of food fast, patients' experiences, and stakeholders' experiences of implementation, including influences. ANOVA was used to test differences over time and interventions.Nineteen acute NHS hospitals participated. Across timepoints, 3,505 duration of fasting observations were recorded. No significant effect of the interventions was observed for either fluid or food fasting times. The effect size was 0.33 for the web-based intervention compared to SD alone for the change in fluid fasting and was 0.12 for PDSA compared to SD alone. The process evaluation showed different types of impact, including changes to practices, policies, and attitudes. A rich picture of the implementation challenges emerged, including inter-professional tensions and a lack of clarity for decision-making authority and responsibility.This was a large, complex study and one of the first national randomised controlled trials conducted within acute care in implementation research. The evidence base for fasting practice was accepted by those participating in this study and the messages from it simple; however, implementation and practical challenges influenced the interventions' impact. A set of conditions for implementation emerges from the findings of this study, which are presented as theoretically transferable propositions that have international relevance.ISRCTN18046709--Peri-operative Implementation Study Evaluation (POISE).

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effect of intramuscular olanzapine with intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine on rapid tranquillisation of agitated or violent people with mental illness.DesignPragmatic, allocation concealed, randomised controlled trial.SettingEmergency services of a general hospital psychiatry department in Vellore, south India.Participants300 adults with agitated or violent behaviour as a result of mental illness; 150 randomised to intramuscular olanzapine and 150 randomised to intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine.InterventionsOpen treatment with intramuscular olanzapine or intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was proportion of patients who were tranquil or asleep at 15 minutes and 240 minutes. Secondary outcomes were proportion of patients who were tranquil, asleep, restrained, absconding, or clinically improved at 15, 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes; additional medical interventions and adverse effects over four hours; and compliance with oral drugs and adverse effects over two weeks.ResultsOf 300 people randomised to receive either intramuscular olanzapine or intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine, follow-up data were available for primary outcomes for 298 (99%). Both treatments resulted in similar proportions of people being tranquil or asleep at 15 minutes (olanzapine 131/150 (87%), haloperidol plus promethazine 136/150 (91%); relative risk 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 1.47) and 240 minutes (olanzapine 144/150 (96%), haloperidol plus promethazine 145/150 (97%); relative risk 0.99, 0.95 to 1.03). However, more people given olanzapine than those given haloperidol plus promethazine required additional drugs over four hours (65/150 (43%) v 31/150 (21%); relative risk 2.07, 1.43 to 2.97). Adverse effects were uncommon with both treatments.ConclusionsIntramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine were effective at rapidly tranquillising or sedating agitated or violent patients with mental illness but the combination resulted in fewer additional medical interventions within four hours of intervention.Trial registrationClinical trials NCT00455234 [ClinicalTrials.gov].

Project description:INTRODUCTION:To address the know-do gap in the integration of mental health care into primary care in resource-limited settings, a multi-faceted implementation program initially designed to integrate HIV/AIDS care into primary care was adapted for severe mental disorders and epilepsy in Burera District, Rwanda. The Mentoring and Enhanced Supervision at Health Centers (MESH MH) program supported primary care-delivered mental health service delivery scale-up from 6 to 19 government-run health centers over two years. This quasi-experimental study assessed implementation reach, fidelity, and clinical outcomes at health centers supported by MESH MH during the scale up period. METHODS:MESH MH consisted of four strategies to ensure the delivery of the priority care packages at health centers: training; supervision and mentorship; audit and feedback; and systems-based quality improvement (QI). Implementation reach (service use) across the 19 health centers supported by MESH MH during the two year scale-up period was described using routine service data. Implementation fidelity was measured at four select health centers by comparing total clinical supervisory visits and checklists to target goals, and by tracking clinical observation checklist item completion rates over a nine month period. A prospective before and after evaluation measured clinical outcomes in consecutive adults presenting to four select health centers over a nine month period. Primary outcome assessments at baseline, 2 and 6 months included symptoms and functioning, measured by the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale (WHO-DAS Brief), respectively. Secondary outcome assessments included engagement in income generating work and caregiver burden using a quantitative scale adapted to context. RESULTS:A total of 2239 mental health service users completed 15,744 visits during the scale up period. MESH MH facilitated 70% and 76% of supervisory visit and clinical checklist utilization target goals, respectively. Checklist item completion rates significantly improved overall, and for three of five checklist item subgroups examined. 121 of 146 consecutive service users completed outcome measurements six months after entry into care. Scores improved significantly over six months on both the GHQ-12, with median score improving from 26 to 10 (mean within-person change 12.5 [95% CI: 10.9-14.0] p< 0.0001), and the WHO-DAS Brief, with median score improving from 26.5 to 7 (mean within-person change 16.9 [95% CI: 14.9-18.8] p< 0.0001). Over the same period, the percentage of surveyed service users reporting an inability to work decreased significantly (51% to 6% (p < 0.001)), and the proportion of households reporting that a caregiver had left income-generating work decreased significantly (41% to 4% (p < 0.001)). CONCLUSION:MESH MH was associated with high service use, improvements in mental health care delivery by primary care nurses, and significant improvements in clinical symptoms and functional disability of service users receiving care at health centers supported by the program. Multifaceted implementation programs such as MESH MH can reduce the evidence to practice gap for mental health care delivery by nonspecialists in resource-limited settings. The primary limitation of this study is the lack of a control condition, consistent with the implementation science approach of the study. STUDY REGISTRATION:ISRCTN #37231.

Project description:BackgroundLifestyle interventions can improve health-related outcomes for people with severe mental illness (SMI), but few studies evaluate this potential in everyday settings. After a successful approach in routine inpatient mental healthcare (MULTI), we sought to replicate this multidisciplinary lifestyle-enhancing support in people with SMI living in sheltered housing (MULTI_sh).AimsTo evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of MULTI_sh (trial registration: NCT03157557).MethodIn an effectiveness-implementation hybrid cluster-randomised controlled trial, six municipalities with sheltered housing facilities in The Netherlands were randomly assigned to MULTI_sh (n = 3) or treatment as usual (TAU, n = 3). After 12 months, we evaluated effects on metabolic health, sedentary behaviour/physical activity (ActiGraph GT3X+), quality of life (EuroQol 5D, WHOQoL-Bref) and psychopathology (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale Expanded Version) using multiple regression, adjusting for baseline values and municipalities (intention to treat and per protocol). In addition, implementation fidelity and barriers/facilitators were evaluated (Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovation).ResultsOf 177 eligible patients, 74 (42%) could be included in the analyses. Health outcomes did not substantially improve with MULTI_sh (n = 45) compared with TAU (n = 29). MULTI_sh was not implemented as intended. Most patients and all healthcare professionals believed that patients' lifestyle should be part of treatment, but implementation was primarily (in)directly hindered by organisational factors (e.g. staff shortages, complexity of participation, lack of time and difficulty getting patients involved).ConclusionsMULTI_sh was not implemented as intended and no clinical health improvements were found. Organisations are decisive in the success or failure of the implementation of lifestyle interventions for people with SMI. More intensive implementation strategies on this level are warranted in sheltered housing.

Project description:IntroductionMobility limitation is common and often results from neurological and musculoskeletal health conditions, ageing and/or physical inactivity. In consultation with consumers, clinicians and policymakers, we have developed two affordable and scalable intervention packages designed to enhance physical activity for adults with self-reported mobility limitations. Both are based on behaviour change theories and involve tailored advice from physiotherapists.Methods and analysisThis pragmatic hybrid effectiveness-implementation type 1 randomised control trial (n=600) will be undertaken among adults with self-reported mobility limitations. It aims to estimate the effects on physical activity of: (1) an enhanced 6-month intervention package (one face-to-face physiotherapy assessment, tailored physical activity plan, physical activity phone coaching from a physiotherapist, informational/motivational resources and activity monitors) compared with a less intensive 6-month intervention package (single session of tailored phone advice from a physiotherapist, tailored physical activity plan, unidirectional text messages, informational/motivational resources); (2) the enhanced intervention package compared with no intervention (6-month waiting list control group); and (3) the less intensive intervention package compared with no intervention (waiting list control group). The primary outcome will be average steps per day, measured with the StepWatch Activity Monitor over a 1-week period, 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include other physical activity measures, measures of health and functioning, individualised mobility goal attainment, mental well-being, quality of life, rate of falls, health utilisation and intervention evaluation. The hybrid effectiveness-implementation design (type 1) will be used to enable the collection of secondary implementation outcomes at the same time as the primary effectiveness outcome. An economic analysis will estimate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the interventions compared with no intervention and to each other.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained by Sydney Local Health District, Royal Prince Alfred Zone. Dissemination will be via publications, conferences, newsletters, talks and meetings with health managers.Trial registration numberACTRN12618001983291.

Project description:BackgroundSepsis survivors experience high morbidity and mortality, and healthcare systems lack effective strategies to address patient needs after hospital discharge. The Sepsis Transition and Recovery (STAR) program is a navigator-led, telehealth-based multicomponent strategy to provide proactive care coordination and monitoring of high-risk patients using evidence-driven, post-sepsis care tasks. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of STAR to improve outcomes for sepsis patients and to examine contextual factors that influence STAR implementation.MethodsThis study uses a hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation design to concurrently test clinical effectiveness and gather implementation data. The effectiveness evaluation is a two-arm, pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial at eight hospitals in North Carolina comparing clinical outcomes between sepsis survivors who receive Usual Care versus care delivered through STAR. Each hospital begins in a Usual Care control phase and transitions to STAR in a randomly assigned sequence (one every 4 months). During months that a hospital is allocated to Usual Care, all eligible patients will receive usual care. Once a hospital transitions to STAR, all eligible patients will receive STAR during their hospitalization and extending through 90 days from discharge. STAR includes centrally located nurse navigators using telephonic counseling and electronic health record-based support to facilitate best-practice post-sepsis care strategies including post-discharge review of medications, evaluation for new impairments or symptoms, monitoring existing comorbidities, and palliative care referral when appropriate. Adults admitted with suspected sepsis, defined by clinical criteria for infection and organ failure, are included. Planned enrollment is 4032 patients during a 36-month period. The primary effectiveness outcome is the composite of all-cause hospital readmission or mortality within 90 days of discharge. A mixed-methods implementation evaluation will be conducted before, during, and after STAR implementation.DiscussionThis pragmatic evaluation will test the effectiveness of STAR to reduce combined hospital readmissions and mortality, while identifying key implementation factors. Results will provide practical information to advance understanding of how to integrate post-sepsis management across care settings and facilitate implementation, dissemination, and sustained utilization of best-practice post-sepsis management strategies in other heterogeneous healthcare delivery systems.Trial registrationNCT04495946 . Submitted July 7, 2020; Posted August 3, 2020.

Project description:IntroductionMost patients diagnosed with diabetes in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) present with poorly controlled blood glucose, which is associated with increased risks of complications and greater financial burden on both the patients and health systems. Insulin-dependent patients with diabetes in SSA lack appropriate home-based monitoring technology to inform themselves and clinicians of the daily fluctuations in blood glucose. Without sufficient home-based data, insulin adjustments are not data driven and adopting individual behavioural change for glucose control in SSA does not have a systematic path towards improvement.Methods and analysisThis study explores the feasibility and impact of implementing self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with type 2 diabetes in rural Rwandan districts. This is an open randomised controlled trial comprising of two arms: (1) Intervention group-participants will receive a glucose metre, blood test strips, logbook, waste management box and training on how to conduct SMBG in additional to usual care and (2) Control group-participants will receive usual care, comprising of clinical consultations and routine monthly follow-up. We will conduct qualitative interviews at enrolment and at the end of the study to assess knowledge of diabetes. At the end of the study period, we will interview clinicians and participants to assess the perceived usefulness, facilitators and barriers of SMBG. The primary outcomes are change in haemoglobin A1c, fidelity to SMBG protocol by patients, appropriateness and adverse effects resulting from SMBG. Secondary outcomes include reliability and acceptability of SMBG and change in the quality of life of the participants.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Rwanda National Ethics Committee (Kigali, Rwanda No.102/RNEC/2018). We will disseminate the findings of this study through presentations within our study settings, scientific conferences and publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberPACTR201905538846394; pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundDaily physical activity is critical during the early years of life for facilitating children's health and development. A large proportion of preschool children do not achieve the recommended 3 h of daily physical activity. Early childhood education and care (ECEC) services are a key setting to intervene to increase physical activity. There is a significant need for ECEC specific physical activity policy, including clearer guidelines on the amount of physical activity children should do during care, and strategies for implementation of these guidelines.MethodsThis study is a pragmatic cluster randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the Play Active physical activity policy intervention to improve early childhood education and care educator's physical activity-related practices. The central component of Play Active is an evidence-informed physical activity policy template which includes 25 practices to support nine age-specific recommendations on the amount of physical activity and sedentary time, including screen time, young children should do while in care. There are six implementation support strategies to facilitate physical activity policy implementation: (i) personalise policy (services select at least five of the 25 practices to focus on initially); (ii) policy review and approval; (iii) a resource guide; (iv) a brief assessment tool for monitoring children's energetic play; (v) professional development; and (vi) Project Officer implementation support (phone calls). A total of 60 early childhood education and care services will be recruited from metropolitan Perth, Western Australia. After baseline assessment, services will be randomly allocated to either intervention or wait-listed comparison conditions. Primary (educator-reported frequency and amount of daily time provided for children's physical activity, sedentary and screen time) and secondary (educator physical activity-related practices, self-efficacy, motivation, attitudes and beliefs, social support, and supportive physical environment) outcomes will be assessed at baseline and post-intervention, after intervention services have had a minimum 3 months of policy implementation within their service.DiscussionThe Play Active trial will rigorously evaluate a novel physical activity policy intervention with implementation support that promotes positive physical activity behaviours in educators and children attending ECEC. If effective, the program could be adapted, scaled-up and delivered in ECEC services nationally.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620001206910 (date of registration 13/11/2020).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Falls are common among older people, and General Practitioners (GPs) could play an important role in implementing strategies to manage fall risk. Despite this, fall prevention is not a routine activity in general practice settings. The iSOLVE cluster randomised controlled trial aimed to evaluate implementation of a fall prevention decision tool in general practice. This paper sought to describe the strategies used and reflect on the enablers and barriers relevant to successful recruitment of general practices, GPs and their patients. METHODS:Recruitment was conducted within the geographical area of a Primary Health Network in Northern Sydney, Australia. General practices and GPs were engaged via online surveys, mailed invitations to participate, educational workshops, practitioner networks and promotional practice visits. Patients 65?years or older were recruited via mailed invitations, incorporating the practice letterhead and the name(s) of participating GP(s). Observations of recruitment strategies, results and enabling factors were recorded in field notes as descriptive and narrative data, and analysed using mixed-methods. RESULTS:It took 19?months to complete recruitment of 27 general practices, 75 GPs and 560 patients. The multiple strategies used to engage general practices and GPs were collectively useful in reaching the targeted sample size. Practice visits were valuable in engaging GPs and staff, establishing interest in fall prevention and commitment to the trial. A mix of small, medium and large practices were recruited. While some were recruited as a whole-practice, other practices had few or half of the number of GPs recruited. The importance of preventing falls in older patients, simplicity of research design, provision of resources and logistic facilitation of patient recruitment appealed to GPs. Recruitment of older patients was successfully achieved by mailed invitations which was a strategy that was familiar to practice staff and patients. Patient response rates were above the expected 10% for most practices. Many practices (n =?17) achieved the targeted number of 20 or more patients. CONCLUSIONS:Recruitment in general practice settings can be successfully achieved through multiple recruitment strategies, effective communication and rapport building, ensuring research topic and design suit general practice needs, and using familiar communication strategies to engage patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The trial was prospectively registered on 29 April 2015 with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry www.anzctr.org.au (trial ID: ACTRN12615000401550).