Coproducing Knowledge of the Implementation of Complex Digital Health Interventions for Adults with Acquired Brain Injury and their Communication Partners: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

Background The Social Brain Toolkit, conceived and developed in partnership with stakeholders, is a novel suite of web-based communication interventions for people with brain injury and their communication partners. To support effective implementation, the developers of the Social Brain Toolkit have collaborated with people with brain injury, communication partners, clinicians, and individuals with digital health implementation experience to coproduce new implementation knowledge. In recognition of the equal value of experiential and academic knowledge, both types of knowledge are included in this study protocol, with input from stakeholder coauthors. Objective This study aims to collaborate with stakeholders to prioritize theoretically based implementation targets for the Social Brain Toolkit, understand the nature of these priorities, and develop targeted implementation strategies to address these priorities, in order to support the Social Brain Toolkit’s implementation. Methods Theoretically underpinned by the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework of digital health implementation, a maximum variation sample (N=35) of stakeholders coproduced knowledge of the implementation of the Social Brain Toolkit. People with brain injury (n=10), communication partners (n=11), and clinicians (n=5) participated in an initial web-based prioritization survey based on the NASSS framework. Survey completion was facilitated by plain English explanations and accessible captioned videos developed through 3 rounds of piloting. A speech-language pathologist also assisted stakeholders with brain injury to participate in the survey via video teleconference. Participants subsequently elaborated on their identified priorities via 7 web-based focus groups, in which researchers and stakeholders exchanged stakeholder perspectives and research evidence from a concurrent systematic review. Stakeholders were supported to engage in focus groups through the use of visual supports and plain English explanations. Additionally, individuals with experience in digital health implementation (n=9) responded to the prioritization survey questions via individual interview. The results will be deductively analyzed in relation to the NASSS framework in a coauthorship process with people with brain injury, communication partners, and clinicians. Results Ethical approval was received from the University of Technology Sydney Health and Medical Research Ethics Committee (ETH20-5466) on December 15, 2020. Data were collected from April 13 to November 18, 2021. Data analysis is currently underway, with results expected for publication in mid-2022. Conclusions In this study, researchers supported individuals with living experience of acquired brain injury, of communicating with or clinically supporting someone post injury, and of digital health implementation, to directly access and leverage the latest implementation research evidence and theory. With this support, stakeholders were able to prioritize implementation research targets, develop targeted implementation solutions, and coauthor and publish new implementation findings. The results will be used to optimize the implementation of 3 real-world, evidence-based interventions and thus improve the outcomes of people with brain injury and their communication partners. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/35080

Meta-review of implementation determinants for policies promoting healthy diet and physically active lifestyle: application of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Background Although multiple systematic reviews indicate that various determinants (barriers and facilitators) occur in the implementation processes of policies promoting healthy diet, physical activity (PA), and sedentary behavior (SB) reduction, the overarching synthesis of such reviews is missing. Applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), this meta-review aims to (1) identify determinants that were systematically indicated as occurring during the implementation processes and (2) identify differences in the presence of determinants across reviews versus stakeholder documents on healthy diet/PA/SB policies, reviews/stakeholder documents addressing healthy diet policies versus PA/SB policies targeting any population/setting, and healthy diet/PA/SB policies focusing on school settings. Methods A meta-review of published systematic scoping or realist reviews (k = 25) and stakeholder documents (k = 17) was conducted. Data from nine bibliographic databases and documentation of nine major stakeholders were systematically searched. Included reviews (72%) and stakeholder documents (100%) provided qualitative synthesis of original research on implementation determinants of policies promoting healthy diet or PA or SB reduction, and 28% of reviews provided some quantitative synthesis. Determinants were considered strongly supported if they were indicated by ≥ 60.0% of included reviews/stakeholder documents. Results Across the 26 CFIR-based implementation determinants, seven were supported by 66.7–76.2% of reviews/stakeholder documents. These determinants were cost, networking with other organizations/communities, external policies, structural characteristics of the setting, implementation climate, readiness for implementation, and knowledge/beliefs of involved individuals. Most frequently, published reviews provided support for inner setting and individual determinants, whereas stakeholder documents supported outer and inner setting implementation determinants. Comparisons between policies promoting healthy diet with PA/SB policies revealed shared support for only three implementation determinants: cost, implementation climate, and knowledge/beliefs. In the case of healthy diet/PA/SB policies targeting school settings, 14 out of 26 implementation determinants were strongly supported. Conclusions The strongly supported (i.e., systematically indicated) determinants may guide policymakers and researchers who need to prioritize potential implementation determinants when planning and monitoring the implementation of respective policies. Future research should quantitatively assess the importance or role of determinants and test investigate associations between determinants and progress of implementation processes. Trial registration PROSPERO, #CRD42019133341

Planning for Implementation Success of an Electronic Cross-Facility Health Record for Pediatric Palliative Care Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)

Pediatric palliative care (PPC) patients require years of care across professions and sectors. Sharing treatment-related information and communicating among different PPC professionals is critical to ensure good quality of care. In Germany, this communication is mostly paper-based and prone to errors. Therefore, an electronic cross-facility health record (ECHR) was participatorily designed with users, wherein information can be shared and PPC professionals can communicate with each other. As this form of electronic health record differs from existing models in Germany, there is a need for successful implementation to ensure a positive impact. Therefore, the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of ECHR in PPC were examined. Using the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR), transcripts of 32 interviews, 3 focus groups, and 20 think-aloud studies with PPC professionals were analyzed. CFIR indicated that the ECHR-design was viewed positively by users and can be a facilitator for implementation. Barriers exist, mainly due to the fact that the implementation is not planned, the use of the ECHR involves effort, costs are not covered, and all users must be motivated to use the ECHR for functionality. CFIR helps uncover the crux of the issues that need to be considered when planning ECHR implementation to improve care in PPC.

Contextual influences on implementation of online behavioral obesity treatment in primary care: formative evaluation guided by the consolidated framework for implementation research

Online behavioral obesity treatment is a promising first-line approach to weight management in primary care. However, little is known about contextual influences on implementation. Understand qualitative contextual factors that affect the implementation process, as experienced by key primary care stakeholders implementing the program. Online behavioral obesity treatment was implemented across a 60-clinic primary care practice network. Patients were enrolled by nurse care managers (NCMs; N = 14), each serving 2–5 practices. NCMs were randomized to one of two implementation conditions—“Basic” (standard implementation) or “Enhanced” (i.e., with added patient tracking features and more implementation strategies employed). NCMs completed qualitative interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were transcribed and analyzed via directed content analysis. Emergent categories were summarized by implementation condition and assigned a valence according to positive/negative influence. Individuals in the Enhanced condition viewed two aspects of the intervention as more positively influencing than Basic NCMs: Design Quality & Packaging (i.e., online program aesthetics), and Cost (i.e., no-cost program, clinician time savings). In both conditions, strongly facilitating factors included: Compatibility between intervention and clinical context; Intervention Source (from a trusted local university); and Evidence Strength & Quality supporting effectiveness. Findings highlight the importance of considering stakeholders’ perspectives on the most valued types of evidence when introducing a new intervention, ensuring the program aligns with organizational priorities, and considering how training resources and feedback on patient progress can improve implementation success for online behavioral obesity treatment in primary care.

Applying Implementation Science to Support Active Collaboration in Noninvasive Brain–Computer Interface Development and Translation for Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to consider how, alongside engineering advancements, noninvasive brain–computer interface (BCI) for augmentative and alternative communication (AAC; BCI-AAC) developments can leverage implementation science to increase the clinical impact of this technology. We offer the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as a structure to help guide future BCI-AAC research. Specifically, we discuss CFIR primary domains that include intervention characteristics, the outer and inner settings, the individuals involved in the intervention, and the process of implementation, alongside pertinent subdomains including adaptability, cost, patient needs and recourses, implementation climate, other personal attributes, and the process of engaging. The authors support their view with current citations from both the AAC and BCI-AAC fields. Conclusions: The article aimed to provide thoughtful considerations for how future research may leverage the CFIR to support meaningful BCI-AAC translation for those with severe physical impairments. We believe that, although significant barriers to BCI-AAC development still exist, incorporating implementation research may be timely for the field of BCI-AAC and help account for diversity in end users, navigate implementation obstacles, and support a smooth and efficient translation of BCI-AAC technology. Moreover, the sooner clinicians, individuals who use AAC, their support networks, and engineers collectively improve BCI-AAC outcomes and the efficiency of translation, the sooner BCI-AAC may become an everyday tool in the AAC arsenal.

An Evaluation of Texture Modified Diets Compliant with the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative in Aged-Care Facilities Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Background: Texture modified diets (TMDs) are commonly prescribed for older adults with swallowing difficulties to improve swallowing safety. The International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative (IDDSI) provides a framework for terminology, definitions and testing of TMDs. This observational mixed-method study used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to establish the barriers and enablers to IDDSI adoption in aged-care facilities (ACFs).Methods: Five New Zealand ACFs who had adopted IDDSI >12 months previously were recruited. Evaluation tools were developed based on CFIR constructs, integrating data from i) mealtime observations; ii) manager interviews and iii) staff (nursing, carers and kitchen) self-administrated surveys. Results: All facility and kitchen managers were IDDSI-aware and had access to online resources. Three sites had changed to commercially compliant products post-IDDSI adoption, which had cost implications. Awareness of IDDSI amongst staff ranged from 5-79% and <50% of staff surveyed felt sufficiently trained. Awareness was greater in large sites and where IDDSI was mandated by head office. Managers had not mandated auditing and they felt this had led to reduced perceived importance. Managers felt staff required more training and staff wanted more training, believing it would improve food safety and quality of care. Lack of a dedicated project leader and no speech pathologist onsite were perceived barriers. Collaboration between healthcare assistants, kitchen staff and allied health assisted implementation. Conclusion: ACF staff were aware of IDDSI but staff awareness was low. Using the CFIR, site-specific and generic barriers and enablers were identified to improve future implementation effectiveness. Managers and staff want access to regular training. Multidisciplinary collaboration and improving communication are essential. ACFs should consider TMD auditing regularly. Successful implementation of IDDSI allows improvement of quality of care and patient safety but requires a systematic, site-specific implementation plan.

Development and application of a hybrid implementation research framework to understand success in reducing under-5 mortality in Rwanda

Background: We describe the development and testing of a hybrid implementation research (IR) framework to understand the pathways, successes, and challenges in addressing amenable under-5 mortality (U5M) – deaths preventable through health system-delivered evidence-based interventions (EBIs) – in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: We reviewed existing IR frameworks to develop a hybrid framework designed to better understand U5M reduction in LMICs from identification of leading causes of amenable U5M, to EBI choice, identification, and testing of strategies, work to achieve sustainability at scale, and key contextual factors. We then conducted a mixed-methods case study of Rwanda using the framework to explore its utility in understanding the steps the country took in EBI-related decision-making and implementation between 2000-2015, key contextual factors which hindered or facilitated success, and to extract actionable knowledge for other countries working to reduce U5M. Results: While relevant frameworks were identified, none individually covered the scope needed to understand Rwanda’s actions and success. Building on these frameworks, we combined and adapted relevant frameworks to capture exploration, planning, implementation, contextual factors in LMICs such as Rwanda, and outcomes beyond effectiveness and coverage. Utilizing our hybrid framework in Rwanda, we studied multiple EBIs and identified a common pathway and cross-cutting strategies and contextual factors that supported the country’s success in reducing U5M through the health system EBIs. Using these findings, we identified transferable lessons for other countries working to accelerate reduction in U5M. Conclusions: We found that a hybrid framework building on and adapting existing frameworks was successful in guiding data collection and interpretation of results, emerging new insights into how and why Rwanda achieved equitable introduction and implementation of health system EBIs that contributed to the decline in U5M, and generated lessons for countries working to drop U5M.