Design, adaptation, and diffusion of an innovative tool to promote shared contraceptive decision-making: Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus

Contraceptive decision-making is highly complex, and family planning (FP) clients choose methods according to a host of personal, interpersonal, and context-specific considerations. These include concerns about side effects, confidence in their ability to adhere to daily or monthly use, efficacy of methods, partner support, and HIV vulnerability. FP decision support tools can support FP clients and providers to engage in a joint decision-making process to ensure clients make informed choices about contraception. For more than two decades, the Balanced Counseling Strategy (BCS) and Balanced Counseling Strategy Plus (BCS+) decision support tools have been used in lower- and middle-income countries, informed by implementation science research and iterative updates and refinements to reflect new developments in contraceptive technology and HIV prevention strategies. To inform the development and scale-up of future FP decision support tools, as well as share lessons from translating implementation science results to practice, this article describes the development, evaluation, and proliferation of BCS and BCS+.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of evidence-based task-sharing mental health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review using implementation science frameworks

Background Task-sharing is a promising strategy to expand mental healthcare in low-resource settings, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Research on how to best implement task-sharing mental health interventions, however, is hampered by an incomplete understanding of the barriers and facilitators to their implementation. This review aims to systematically identify implementation barriers and facilitators in evidence-based task-sharing mental health interventions using an implementation science lens, organizing factors across a novel, integrated implementation science framework. Methods PubMed, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Embase were used to identify English-language, peer-reviewed studies using search terms for three categories: “mental health,” “task-sharing,” and “LMIC.” Articles were included if they: focused on mental disorders as the main outcome(s); included a task-sharing intervention using or based on an evidence-based practice; were implemented in an LMIC setting; and included assessment or data-supported analysis of barriers and facilitators. An initial conceptual model and coding framework derived from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Theoretical Domains Framework was developed and iteratively refined to create an integrated conceptual framework, the Barriers and Facilitators in Implementation of Task-Sharing Mental Health Interventions (BeFITS-MH), which specifies 37 constructs across eight domains: (I) client characteristics, (II) provider characteristics, (III) family and community factors, (IV) organizational characteristics, (V) societal factors, (VI) mental health system factors, (VII) intervention characteristics, and (VIII) stigma. Results Of the 26,935 articles screened (title and abstract), 192 articles underwent full-text review, yielding 37 articles representing 28 unique intervention studies that met the inclusion criteria. The most prevalent facilitators occur in domains that are more amenable to adaptation (i.e., the intervention and provider characteristics domains), while salient barriers occur in domains that are more challenging to modulate or intervene on—these include constructs in the client characteristics as well as the broader societal and structural levels of influence (i.e., the organizational, mental health system domains). Other notable trends include constructs in the family and community domains occurring as barriers and as facilitators roughly equally, and stigma constructs acting exclusively as barriers. Conclusions Using the BeFITS-MH model we developed based on implementation science frameworks, this systematic review provides a comprehensive identification and organization of barriers and facilitators to evidence-based task-sharing mental health interventions in LMICs. These findings have important implications for ongoing and future implementation of this critically needed intervention strategy, including the promise of leveraging task-sharing intervention characteristics as sites of continued innovation, the importance of but relative lack of engagement with constructs in macro-level domains (e.g., organizational characteristics, stigma), and the need for more delineation of strategies for task-sharing mental health interventions that researchers and implementers can employ to enhance implementation in and across levels. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42020161357

Implementation of the Frailty Care Bundle (FCB) to promote mobilisation, nutrition and cognitive engagement in older people in acute care settings: protocol for an implementation science study

Background: Older people are among the most vulnerable patients in acute care hospitals. The hospitalisation process can result in newly acquired functional or cognitive deficits termed hospital associated decline (HAD). Prioritising fundamental care including mobilisation, nutrition, and cognitive engagement can reduce HAD risk. Aim: The Frailty Care Bundle (FCB) intervention aims to implement and evaluate evidence-based principles on early mobilisation, enhanced nutrition and increased cognitive engagement to prevent functional decline and HAD in older patients. Methods: A hybrid implementation science study will use a pragmatic prospective cohort design with a pre-post mixed methods evaluation to test the effect of the FCB on patient, staff, and health service outcomes. The evaluation will include a description of the implementation process, intervention adaptations, and economic costs analysis. The protocol follows the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI). The intervention design and implementation strategy will utilise the behaviour change theory COM-B (capability, motivation, opportunity) and the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS). A clinical facilitator will use a co-production approach with staff. All patients will receive care as normal, the intervention is delivered at ward level and focuses on nurses and health care assistants (HCA) normative clinical practices. The intervention will be delivered in three hospitals on six wards including rehabilitation, acute trauma, medical and older adult wards. Evaluation: The evaluation will recruit a volunteer sample of 180 patients aged 65 years or older (pre 90; post 90 patients). The primary outcomes are measures of functional status (modified Barthel Index (MBI)) and mobilisation measured as average daily step count using accelerometers. Process data will include ward activity mapping, staff surveys and interviews and an economic cost-impact analysis. Conclusions: This is a complex intervention that involves ward and system level changes and has the potential to improve outcomes for older patients.

But is It Hermeneutic Enough?: Reading for Methodological Salience in a Scoping Review of Hermeneutics and Implementation Science

Hermeneutic methods have been widely used in health research. Through conducting a scoping review of hermeneutic studies related to implementation in healthcare, we identified various approaches and common strengths across studies. The review was part of a larger study exploring how hermeneutics could contribute fresh perspectives to implementation science. We looked at a large number of studies that reported some use of hermeneutics with a focus on what they had to say about processes of implementation in health care environments. While meeting our primary goal of identifying what was salient to implementation, we came up against the question of what made for a strong hermeneutic study. Through an extensive process of evaluation and discussion, several common elements emerged across studies that used hermeneutics: participatory conversations, reflective spaces, attention to alterity, and close-up granular detail. In this article, we outline the review process, then focus on six articles that met our criteria for relevance to implementation and hermeneutic strength. We discuss how some or all the common elements appeared in the articles, despite wide variations in topic and in how hermeneutics was applied. We argue that strength in hermeneutic research stems from a dialectic between applied principles and outcomes.