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

‘Trying to fly the plane while we were building it’. Applying a learning health systems approach to evaluate early-stage barriers and facilitators to implementing primary care transformation: a qualitative study

ObjectiveA learning health system (LHS) uses data to generate evidence and answer questions required to continually improve system performance and patient care. Given the complexities of practice transformation, an area where LHS is particularly important is the study of primary care transformation (PCT) as PCT generates several practice-level questions that require study where the findings can be readily implemented. In May 2019, a large integrated health delivery system in Minnesota began implementation of a population management PCT in two of its 40 primary care clinics. In this model of care, patients are grouped into one of five service bundles based on their complexity of care; patient appointment lengths and services provided are then tailored to each service bundle. The objective of this study was to examine the use of a LHS in PCT by utilising the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to categorise implementation lessons from the initial two PCT clinics to inform further implementation of the PCT within the health system.DesignThis was a formative evaluation in which semistructured qualitative interviews were carried out. Observational field notes were also taken. Inductive coding of the data was performed and resultant codes were mapped to the CFIR.SettingTwo suburban primary care clinics in the Twin Cities, Minnesota.ParticipantsTwenty-two care team members from the first two clinics to adopt the PCT.ResultsSeventeen codes emerged to describe care team members’ perceived implementation influences. Codes occurred in each of the five CFIR domains (intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of individuals and process), with most codes occurring in the ‘inner setting’ domain.ConclusionsUsing an LHS approach to determine early-stage implementation influences is key to guiding further PCT implementation, understanding modifications that need to be made and additional research that needs to occur.

Implementation of evidence-based guidance for dementia palliative care using participatory action research: examining implementation through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)

Background The importance of providing evidence-based palliative care for people with dementia is increasingly acknowledged as important for patient outcomes. In Ireland, evidence-based guidance has been developed in order to address key features of dementia palliative care, including the management of pain, medications and hydration and nutrition. The aim of this study was to identify and explore the factors affecting the implementation of evidence-based guidance on dementia palliative care. Methods The Consolidated Framework for Implementation (CFIR) guided a mixed-method pre-post study. One guidance document pertaining to the management of pain, medication or hydration and nutrition was implemented in three long-term care facilities. Participatory action research in the form of work-based learning groups was used to implement the guidance, drawing on a situational analysis (pre-implementation). Staff questionnaires and audits were conducted pre- and post-implementation while champion interviews were also conducted post-implementation. Results Features of the guidance, the inner setting components such as readiness to change, and the process of implementation were most frequently identified as impacting implementation. Components of the outer setting, such as external policy incentives and individual characteristics, featured less commonly. Data from qualitative interviews revealed that the guidance was perceived as advantageous or complimentary to previous care provided. Within the inner setting, leadership and support from other colleagues facilitated implementation. However, limited availability of other healthcare professionals to assist with carrying out guidance actions presented a barrier in some facilities. The external facilitators of the work-based learning groups (WBLGs) were perceived as experienced and encouraged active participation and reflection on practices. Despite the challenge of releasing staff to attend the WBLGs, quantitative data demonstrated reduced staff de-motivation amongst those who did attend was noted post-implementation (pre-Mdn = 19.50 versus post-Mdn = 22.00, U = 497.00, p = 0.07). Conclusions A situational analysis informed by the CFIR framework in conjunction with a participatory action research approach helped to advance the implementation of the guidance. The progress of implementation depended on the extent to which evidence-based care was previously being implemented at each site. Post-implementation analysis using CFIR identified challenges to address in future projects such as staff cover and timing of training to facilitate attendance for staff with different working hours. Facilitators included multidisciplinary engagement with the intervention and champions at each site to support the implementation process.

Implementation of an Evidence-Based Intervention with Safety Net Clinics to Improve Mammography Appointment Adherence Among Underserved Women

The Peace of Mind Program is an evidence-based intervention to improve mammography appointment adherence in underserved women. The aim of this study was to assess effectiveness of the intervention and implementation of the intervention in safety net clinics. The intervention was implemented through a non-randomized stepped wedge cluster hybrid study design with 19 Federally Qualified Health Centers and charity care clinics within the Greater Houston area. A multivariable generalized estimating equation logistic regression was conducted to examine mammography appointment adherence. A survey assessing Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research constructs was also conducted with clinic staff prior to adoption and eight weeks post implementation. One-sided t-tests were conducted to analyze mean score changes between the surveys. A total of 4402 women (baseline period = 2078; intervention period = 2324) were included in the final regression analysis. Women in the intervention period were more likely to attend or reschedule their mammography appointment (OR = 1.30; p < 0.01) than those in the baseline period receiving usual care. Women who completed the intervention were more likely to attend or reschedule their mammography appointment than those who did not complete the intervention (OR = 1.62; p < 0.01). The mammography appointment no-show rates for those in the baseline period, in the intervention period, and who completed the intervention were, respectively, 22%, 19%, and 15%. A total of 15 clinics prior to adoption and eight clinics completed the survey at 8 weeks post implementation A statistically significant mean score decrease was observed in Inner Setting and in two Inner Setting CFIR constructs, Culture–Effort, and Implementation Climate. While the intervention improved mammography appointment adherence, there are opportunities to further integrate Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research constructs. Trial registration: Clinical trials registration number: NCT02296177.

Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of the Pathways to Comorbidity Care (PCC) Training Package for the Management of Comorbid Mental Disorders in Drug and Alcohol Settings

Background: We have previously reported that the Pathways to Comorbidity Care (PCC) training program for alcohol and other drug (AOD) clinicians improved identification of comorbidity, self-efficacy, and attitudes toward screening and monitoring of comorbidity. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators of implementation of the PCC training program in drug and alcohol settings.Methods: The PCC training program was implemented across 6 matched sites in Australia as per (1), and 20 clinicians received training. PCC training included seminar presentations, workshops conducted by local “clinical champions,” individual clinical supervision, and access to an online information portal. We examined barriers and facilitators of implementation according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.Results: Barriers included inner setting (e.g., allocated time for learning) and characteristics of individuals (e.g., resistance). Facilitators included intervention characteristics (e.g., credible sources), inner setting (e.g., leadership), and outer setting domains (e.g., patient needs). Clinical champions were identified as an important component of the implementation process.Conclusions: Barriers included limited specific allocated time for learning. A credible clinical supervisor, strong leadership engagement and an active clinical champion were found to be facilitators of the PCC training program.

Using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to investigate facilitators and barriers of implementing alcohol screening and brief intervention among primary care health professionals: a systematic review

Background Alcohol 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). Methods We 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. Results A 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. Conclusions Most 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 registration This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021258833).

Implementation, interrupted: Identifying and leveraging factors that sustain after a program interruption

BackgroundMany implementation efforts experience interruptions, especially in settings with developing health systems. Approaches for evaluating interruptions are needed to inform targeted re-implementation strategies.MethodsThis study took place in two public health centers with tuberculosis (TB) units in Uganda that previously implemented diabetes mellitus (DM) screening in 2017. In 2019, we conducted interviews with clinic staff to determine current DM practices. We mapped themes identified in the interviews to a Social Ecological Model with three levels: outer setting, inner setting, and individuals.ResultsWe conducted nine interviews with clinic staff. Respondents explained that DM screening ceased due to disruptions in the supply chain for glucose test strips. This outer setting interruption had cascading effects on the inner setting and individuals. The lack of screening supplies limited the staff’s opportunities to perform DM screening within the inner setting level, which was associated with diminished self-efficacy within the individual level. However, culture, compatibility and individual beliefs about DM screening sustained throughout the interruption.ConclusionsWe identified factors that diminished and sustained within and between ecological levels during a program interruption. Using this approach, other programs facing interruptions can identify factors and cascading effects of the interruption to target them for re-implementation.

Factors associated with adherence to guideline-recommended cardiovascular disease prevention among HIV clinicians

Integrating cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in routine HIV care remains a challenge. This study aimed to identify factors associated with adherence to guideline-recommended CVD preventive practices among HIV clinicians. Clinicians from eight HIV clinics in Atlanta were invited to complete an online survey. The survey was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and assessed the following: clinician CVD risk screening and advice frequency (never to always), individual characteristics (clinician beliefs, self-efficacy, and motivation), inner setting factors (clinic culture, learning climate, leadership engagement, and resources available), and outer setting factors (peer pressure and patient needs). Bivariate correlations examined associations between these factors and guideline adherence. Thirty-eight clinicians completed the survey (82% women, mean age 42 years, 50% infectious disease physicians). For risk screening, clinicians always check patient blood pressure (median score 7.0/7), while they usually ask about smoking or check their blood glucose (median score 6.0/7). For advice provision, clinicians usually recommend quitting smoking, controlling cholesterol or controlling blood pressure (median score 6.0/7), while they often recommend controlling blood glucose, losing weight, or improving diet/physical activity (median score 5.5/7). Clinician beliefs, motivation and self-efficacy were positively correlated with screening and advice practices (r = .55−.84), while inner setting factors negatively correlated with lifestyle-related screening and advice practices (r = −.51 to −.76). Peer pressure was positively correlated with screening and advice practices (r = .57–.89). Clinician psychosocial characteristics and perceived peer pressure positively influence adherence to guideline-recommended CVD preventive practices. These correlates along with leadership engagement could be targeted with proven implementation strategies.

[The innovation characteristics of person-centred care as perceived by healthcare professionals: an interview study employing a deductive-inductive content analysis guided by the consolidated framework for implementation research

Background Person-centred care (PCC) is promoted as an innovation that will improve patients’ rights and increase their participation in healthcare. Experience shows that the implementation of PCC is challenging and often results in varying levels of adoption. How health care professionals (HCPs) perceive an innovation such as PCC is an important factor to consider in implementation. Yet, such studies are scarce. Thus, in a sample of healthcare units in a region in Sweden, involved in a transition to PCC, we aimed to investigate HCPs’ perceptions of PCC. Methods An interview study was conducted in 2018 during the implementation of PCC with HCPs (n = 97) representing diverse vocational roles in six healthcare contexts. Data were collected via focus groups (n = 15), dyadic interviews (n = 5), and individual interviews (n = 22) and analysed using a deductive–inductive content analysis. The deductive approach was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), followed by an inductive analysis to describe HCPs’ in-depth perceptions of PCC in relation to each of the CFIR constructs. Results Eight constructs from two of the CFIR domains, Intervention characteristics and Inner setting, were used to code HCPs’ perceptions of PCC. One construct, Observability, was added to the coding sheet to fully describe all the data. The constructs Relative advantage, Complexity, Compatibility, Observability, and Available resources were discussed in depth by HCPs and resulted in rich and detailed data in the inductive data analysis. This analysis showed large variations in perceptions of PCC among HCPs, based on factors such as the PCCs ethical underpinnings, its operationalisation into concrete working routines, and each HCPs’ unique recognition of PCC and the value they placed on it. Conclusions We identified nine CFIR constructs that seem pertinent to HCPs’ perceptions of PCC. HCPs report an array of mixed perceptions of PCC, underlining its complex nature. The perceptions are shaped by a range of factors, such as their individual understandings of the concept and the operationalisation of PCC in their local context. Stakeholders in charge of implementing PCC might use the results as a guide, delineating factors that may be important to consider in a wide range of healthcare contexts.

Evaluating the implementation of interdisciplinary patient-centred care intervention for people with multimorbidity in primary care: a qualitative study

ObjectiveA patient-centred care interdisciplinary pragmatic intervention to support self-management for patients with multimorbidity was implemented in one region of Quebec, Canada. This embedded study aimed to evaluate the process of implementation.DesignA descriptive qualitative study was conducted in 2016–2017 using semistructured individual interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide the data coding, analysis and reporting of the findings.SettingThe study took place in seven Family Medicine Groups in one region (Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean) of Quebec, Canada.ParticipantsTen managers (including two family physicians) and 19 healthcare professionals (HCPs), nurses, kinesiologists, nutritionists and a respiratory therapist, were interviewed.ResultsMany key elements within the five CFIR domains were identified as impacting the implementation of the intervention : (1) intervention characteristics—evidence strength and quality, design quality and packaging, relative advantage and complexity; (2) outer setting—patients’ needs and resources, external policies and incentives; (3) inner setting—structural characteristics, networks and communication, culture, compatibility, readiness for implementation and leadership engagement; (4) characteristics of the managers and HCPs—knowledge and belief about the intervention; (5) process—planning, opinion leaders, formally appointed internal implementation leaders, reflecting and evaluating.ConclusionThis study revealed the organisational and contextual aspects of the implementation based on different and complementary perspectives. With the growing demand for interdisciplinary teams in primary care, we believe that our insights will be helpful for practices, researchers, and policymakers interested in the implementation of disease prevention and management programmes for people with multiple chronic conditions in primary care.Trial registration numberNCT02789800.