Dataset Information

Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to Inform the Design of the Mobile Inspeccion Visual con Acido Acetico System: Mixed Methods Case Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is growing evidence supporting the use of mobile health (mHealth) interventions in low- and middle-income countries to address resource limitations in the delivery of health information and services to vulnerable populations. In parallel, there is an increasing emphasis on the use of implementation science tools and frameworks for the early identification of implementation barriers and to improve the acceptability, appropriateness, and adoption of mHealth interventions in resource-limited settings. However, there are limited examples of the application of implementation science tools and frameworks to the formative phase of mHealth design for resource-limited settings despite the potential benefits of this work for enhancing subsequent implementation, scale-up, and sustainability.

Objective

We presented a case study on the use of an implementation science framework in mHealth design. In particular, we illustrated the usability of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) for organizing and interpreting formative research findings during the design of the mobile Inspección Visual con Ácido Acético (mIVAA) system in Lima, Peru.

Methods

We collected formative data from prospective users of the mIVAA intervention using multiple research methodologies, including structured observations, surveys, group and individual interviews, and discussions with local stakeholders at the partnering organization in Peru. These activities enabled the documentation of clinical workflows, perceived barriers to and facilitators of mIVAA, overarching barriers to cervical cancer screening in community-based settings, and related local policies and guidelines in health care. Using a convergent mixed methods analytic approach and the CFIR as an organizing framework, we mapped formative research findings to identify key implementation barriers and inform iterations of the mIVAA system design.

Results

In the setting of our case study, most implementation barriers were identified in the CFIR domains of intervention characteristics and inner setting. All but one barrier were addressed before mIVAA deployment by modifying the system design and adding supportive resources. Solutions involved improvements to infrastructure, including cellular data plans to avoid disruption from internet failure; improved process and flow, including an updated software interface; and better user role definition for image capture to be consistent with local health care laws.

Conclusions

The CFIR can serve as a comprehensive framework for organizing formative research data and identifying key implementation barriers during mHealth intervention design. In our case study of the mIVAA system in Peru, formative research contributing to the CFIR domains of intervention characteristics and inner setting elicited the most key barriers to implementation. The early identification of barriers enabled design iterations before system deployment. Future efforts to develop mHealth interventions for low- and middle-income countries may benefit from using the approach presented in this case study as well as prioritizing the CFIR domains of intervention characteristics and inner setting.

SUBMITTER: Reid HW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9264128 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare-related adverse events occur because of complex healthcare systems. The patient safety reporting system is a core component of patient safety initiatives in hospitals. However, hospital management often encounters a cultural barrier with its implementation and struggles to overcome the same. Implementation science would be useful for analysing implementation strategies. This study determines the effects of the implemented strategy on an increase in the number of patient safety reports and the determinants of successful implementation, using the implementation framework.MethodsMixed method analysis was performed in Fujita Health University Hospital (FHUH), a large volume hospital in Japan. We identified strategies to implement the patient safety reporting system by scrutinising internal documents using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The electronic reporting systems developed in 2004 in the FHUH and the number of reports were analysed using the staff data and hospital volumes.ResultsReports (n = 110,058) issued between April 2004 and March 2020 were analysed. The number of reports increased from 2004 to 2008 and from 2013 to 2019, reaching 14,037 reports per year. Between 2009 and 2012, the FHUH experienced a stagnation period where the number of reports were not increasing. From the qualitative materials, we identified 74 strategies which contributed to the implementation of the patient safety reporting system. Among these, the domain of 'intervention characteristics' in the CFIR contained 12 strategies, 'outer settings' contained 20, 'inner settings' contained 21, 'characteristics of individuals' contained 8, and 'process' contained 13. There were two concentrated periods of the implemented strategies, the number was 17 in 2007 and 10 in 2016. These concentrated periods preceded a remarkable increase in the number of patient safety reports.ConclusionsA safety culture had been fostered in FHUH in the study period. A relationship between number of strategies and development of a reporting culture was observed. The intensity of adequate strategies was needed for implementation of patient safety reporting system. Therefore, the implementation framework is useful for analysing patient safety initiatives for safety culture.

Project description:BackgroundEnhancing Quality of Prescribing Practices for Older Adults Discharged from the Emergency Department (EQUIPPED) is an effective quality improvement program initially designed in the Veterans Administration (VA) health care system to reduce potentially inappropriate medication prescribing for adults aged 65 years and older. This study examined factors that influence implementation of EQUIPPED in EDs from four distinct, non-VA academic health systems using a convergent mixed methods design that operationalized the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Fidelity of delivery served as the primary implementation outcome.Materials and methodsFour EDs implemented EQUIPPED sequentially from 2017 to 2021. Using program records, we scored each ED on a 12-point fidelity index calculated by adding the scores (1-3) for each of four components of the EQUIPPED program: provider receipt of didactic education, one-on-one academic detailing, monthly provider feedback reports, and use of order sets. We comparatively analyzed qualitative data from focus groups with each of the four implementation teams (n = 22) and data from CFIR-based surveys of ED providers (108/234, response rate of 46.2%) to identify CFIR constructs that distinguished EDs with higher vs. lower levels of implementation.ResultsOverall, three sites demonstrated higher levels of implementation (scoring 8-9 of 12) and one ED exhibited a lower level (scoring 5 of 12). Two constructs distinguished between levels of implementation as measured through both quantitative and qualitative approaches: patient needs and resources, and organizational culture. Implementation climate distinguished level of implementation in the qualitative analysis only. Networks and communication, and leadership engagement distinguished level of implementation in the quantitative analysis only.DiscussionUsing CFIR, we demonstrate how a range of factors influence a critical implementation outcome and build an evidence-based approach on how to prime an organizational setting, such as an academic health system ED, for successful implementation.ConclusionThis study provides insights into implementation of evidence-informed programs targeting medication safety in ED settings and serves as a potential model for how to integrate theory-based qualitative and quantitative methods in implementation studies.

Project description:Background: Although understanding implementation context is essential, there is a dearth of research on how to systematically explore it in quality improvement (QI) programs. Therefore, in this study, we used the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) to guide a systematic evaluation of the implementation context of an ongoing QI program in order to generate rapid site-specific feedback that can be used to improve subsequent plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles.Methods: Formative cross-case evaluation was conducted using convergent mixed methods design. The study was conducted in five primary health care (PHC) facilities (PHC 1, PHC 3, PHC 5, PHC 9 and PHC 10) implementing the QI program. Health workers in those facilities formed the study population. Quantitative data were collected using a self-administered, Likert-based rating tool, while qualitative data collection was guided by an interview guide. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was performed. Raw median score and factor scores were computed. Methodological integration occurred at the design, analysis and reporting stage.Results: A total of 165 health workers were included in this study with a mean age of 33.43 years (standard deviation of 7.15). Majority were females and they all had post-secondary education. Health workers in two facilities; PHC 1 and PHC 5, reported higher score for the QI program across all five domains of CFIR. Implementation facilitators included intervention flexibility, relative advantage, self-efficacy among health workers, health workers confidence in the intervention, services integration. While implementation barriers included vaccine stock out, faulty cold chain infrastructure, lack of incentives, and socio-cultural beliefs.Conclusion: This study demonstrated that theory-driven formative evaluation can be integrated in QI programs in a low resource setting. It buttressed the value in conducting such assessment as they can be used to generate rapid feedback on factors that influence implementation success which can then be addressed in subsequent cycles.

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.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a paucity of translational research programmes to improve implementation of evidence-based care in drug and alcohol settings. This systematic review aimed to provide a synthesis and evaluation of the effectiveness of implementation programmes of treatment for patients with drug and alcohol problems using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).MethodsA comprehensive systematic review was conducted using five online databases (from inception onwards). Eligible studies included clinical trials and observational studies evaluating strategies used to implement evidence-based psychosocial treatments for alcohol and substance use disorders. Extracted data were qualitatively synthesised for common themes according to the CFIR. Primary outcomes included the implementation, service system or clinical practice. Risk of bias of individual studies was appraised using appropriate tools. A protocol was registered with (PROSPERO) (CRD42019123812) and published previously (Louie et al. Systematic 9:2020).ResultsOf the 2965 references identified, twenty studies were included in this review. Implementation research has employed a wide range of strategies to train clinicians in a few key evidence-based approaches to treatment. Implementation strategies were informed by a range of theories, with only two studies using an implementation framework (Baer et al. J Substance Abuse Treatment 37:191-202, 2009) used Context-Tailored Training and Helseth et al. J Substance Abuse Treatment 95:26-34, 2018) used the CFIR). Thirty of the 36 subdomains of the CFIR were evaluated by included studies, but the majority were concerned with the Characteristics of Individuals domain (75%), with less than half measuring Intervention Characteristics (45%) and Inner Setting constructs (25%), and only one study measuring the Outer Setting and Process domains. The most common primary outcome was the effectiveness of implementation strategies on treatment fidelity. Although several studies found clinician characteristics influenced the implementation outcome (40%) and many obtained clinical outcomes (40%), only five studies measured service system outcomes and only four studies evaluated the implementation.ConclusionsWhile research has begun to accumulate in domains such as Characteristics of Individuals and Intervention Characteristics (e.g. education, beliefs and attitudes and organisational openness to new techniques), this review has identified significant gaps in the remaining CFIR domains including organisational factors, external forces and factors related to the process of the implementation itself. Findings of the review highlight important areas for future research and the utility of applying comprehensive implementation frameworks.