BackgroundHealth care professionals often fail to adhere to evidence-based guidelines. The implementation of evidence-based methods in health care requires systematic support, but it is still unclear which strategies support professional adherence to clinical practice guidelines. Behavior change techniques can contribute to a more detailed description of implementation strategies. The aim of this scoping review was to explore the nature of studies investigating the sustainability of physiotherapists’ (PTs’) and occupational therapists’ (OTs’) clinical behavior when implementing evidence-based methods in health care. Two research questions were addressed: (1) Which implementation strategies are used in studies that have experienced sustained and unsustained changes in the clinical behavior of PTs and OTs? (2) Which behavior change techniques are used in studies involving sustained and unsustained changes in the clinical behavior of PTs and OTs?MethodsThe scoping review was carried out in accordance with recommendations and the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Six databases were searched. Studies evaluating changes in the clinical behavior of PTs or OTs before and at least 6 months after the end of an implementation intervention were included.ResultsA total of 5130 studies were screened, and 29 studies were included. Twenty-one studies reported sustained results, and 8 studies reported unsustained results. The studies reporting sustained clinical behavior used in median 7 implementation strategies, 45% used a 12–24-month implementation support period, and 86% of the interventions were theory-based. Twenty-two implementation strategies were identified among the included studies. Only two of these defined the implementation strategies in terms of behavior change techniques.ConclusionsStudies reporting sustained results were characterized by the use of longer implementation periods, more implementation strategies, more theory-based interventions, and more behavior change techniques. Audit and feedback, resources, problem solving, and communities of practice were implementation strategies, and problem solving, demonstration of behavior, and social support were behavior change techniques that were more common in studies with sustained results of PTs’ and OTs’ clinical behavior. Our study also highlights the importance of well-described implementation studies.RegistrationThe protocol for the scoping review has been registered in the Open Science Framework, OSF registry (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DUYQM).

BackgroundHealth disparities lead to negative COVID-19 outcomes for Hispanic/Latino communities. Rapid antigen testing was an important mitigation tool for protecting schools and their communities as in-person learning resumed. Within the context of a 3-middle-school non-inferiority trial we assessed acceptability and appropriateness of at-home and school-based COVID-19 antigen testing and implementation barriers and facilitators to facilitate district-wide scale up.MethodsGuided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and acceptability and appropriateness implementation outcomes, we collected post-implementation qualitative (n = 30) and quantitative (n = 454) data in English and Spanish from trial participants, in-depth feedback sessions among program implementers (n = 19) and coded 137 project meeting minutes. Verbatim transcripts were thematically analyzed. We used multivariate linear models to evaluate program acceptability and appropriateness by COVID-19 testing modality and mixed qualitative and quantitative findings for interpretation.ResultsQuestionnaire respondents closely matched school demographics (> 80% Hispanic/Latino and 8% Filipino/Asian Pacific Islander). While both testing modalities were rated as highly acceptable and appropriate, at-home testing was consistently favorable. Qualitative findings provided actionable areas for at-home testing program refinement, guiding district-wide scale up including: maintaining a learning climate to accommodate modifications as guidelines changed, needs of the school community, and implementation challenges; ensuring an engaged school leadership and sufficient human resources; improving educational communication about COVID-19 and technology ease of use; and increased time for pre-implementation planning and engagement.ConclusionsResults underscore the value of the CFIR to inform program implementation, particularly programs to reduce disparities during a public health emergency. Results support optimal testing implementation strategies centering the needs and perspectives of Hispanic/Latinos.

BackgroundThe efficacy of lung cancer screening (LCS) to reduce lung cancer specific mortality is heavily dependent on adherence to recommended screening guidelines, with real-world adherence rates reported to be drastically lower than rates described in clinical trials. There is a dearth in the literature on reminder processes and clinical workflows used to address adherence and robust data is needed to fully understand which clinical set-ups, processes, and context enhance and increase continued LCS participation. This paper describes a protocol for an environmental scan of adherence and reminder processes that are currently used in LCS programs across the United States.MethodsThis study will triangulate data using a 3-step explanatory sequential mixed methods design to describe mechanisms of current adherence and reminder systems within academic and community LCS programs to pinpoint clinic or system barrier and facilitator combinations that contribute to increased adherence. In step 1, surveys from a nationally representative sample of LCS programs will yield quantitative data about program structure, volume, and tracking/reminder processes and messages. After completion of the survey, interested LCS program personnel will be invited to participate in an in-depth interview (step 2) to explore current processes and interventions used for adherence at the participant and program level. Finally, in step 3, triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data will be completed through qualitative comparative analysis to identify combinations of components that affect higher or lower adherence.DiscussionThis research advances the state of the science by filling a gap in knowledge about LCS program characteristics and processes associated with better adherence which can inform the development and implementation of interventions that are scalable and sustainable across a wide variety of clinical practice settings.

BackgroundIn clinical oncology practice, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential for assessing the symptom burden, quality of life, and psychological status of patients. However, there remains a gap between the use of PROs in an oncologic setting and its implementation. Furthermore, numerous reviews in PRO implementation are often based on one particular technology, setting, or health condition, making it difficult to obtain a comprehensive and coherent summary of available evidence to help plan and undertake implementation. This systematic review aims to identify and integrate enablers and barriers to PRO implementation through the comprehensive framework for implementation research (CFIR) to provide a reference for implementing patient-reported outcomes management in oncology settings.MethodsThis review strictly observed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were systematically searched using a three-step search strategy. The search was limited from the inception of each database to April 2024. Articles describing facilitators and barriers to implementing PROs in clinical oncology practice were included. Two researchers screened the literature independently, and the quality assessment of cross-sectional, qualitative, and mixed studies was completed using the critical appraisal tools recommended by Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and the mixed methods assessment tool, respectively. Basic information about the included studies and determinants affecting PRO implementation was extracted, and coding categorization of facilitators and barriers was completed based on the 48 constructs provided by the CFIR framework.ResultsWe included 30 studies from 5,649 search results, including 25 original and 5 review studies. The quality of the literature for qualitative studies was generally good, and the quality for quantitative and mixed studies was assessed as fair. We identified 52 facilitators and 50 barriers in the included literature, covering the domains used in the CFIR framework and 39 constructs, mainly including "Innovation Evidence-Base", "Innovation Complexity", "Innovation Design", "Structural Characteristics", "Compatibility", "Incentive Systems", "Access to Knowledge & Information", "Innovation Deliverers", "Innovation Recipients", and "Planning".ConclusionsThis systematic review integrated facilitators and barriers affecting PRO implementation in routine oncology clinical practice settings and categorized them through the CFIR framework. These influencing factors should be fully considered in future clinical practice to ensure the successful implementation of PROs.Trial registrationIt has been registered prospectively in PROSPERO under the registration number 42024532983.

BackgroundWhile previous studies have examined various platforms that enable providers to connect, Virtual Hallway (VH) stands out with its unique features. The value add is that this online platform connects primary care providers and specialists for synchronous phone-based conversations and aims to reduce referrals and enhance the quality of referrals. VH allows providers to easily log in, select the required specialty, book call times, receive reminders, and have calls documented, ensuring a high connection rate. In May 2022, the provincial health authority in Nova Scotia, a Canadian province, and VH initiated a feasibility study facilitated through the Health Innovation Hub in Nova Scotia. The goal was to enable primary care providers to connect with specialists, thereby reducing wait times and unnecessary referrals, and facilitating timely access to relevant clinical direction for patients. The current evaluation assessed utilization, value for money in economic analysis, and consultation experiences.MethodsThe study used post, cross-sectional, and cost-benefit study designs. We collected data through various methods, including administratively recorded utilization, theory-driven surveys, and cost data. Utilization was measured by the number of completed consults and the number of healthcare professionals using the VH platform. We analyzed the data using a combination of descriptive statistics and a cost-benefit analysis, which also involved conducting probabilistic sensitivity analysis.ResultsThe study found that approximately 84% of the VH consultations avoided needing in-person specialist referrals. The return on investment was 1.8 (95% CI: 0.8 to 3.0), indicating that the monetary value of the measurable benefits associated with VH exceeded the value of the resources invested. The provider experience survey revealed high satisfaction levels with VH across user groups, with 92% of specialists and 96% of primary care providers reporting being satisfied or highly satisfied with their experience. These positive indicators of provider experience were further supported by the fact that 97% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they intended to continue to use VH in their practice, and 97% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they would recommend VH to a colleague.ConclusionsThe study suggests that VH was well-received by users, with high levels of satisfaction reported and a reduced need for in-person referrals. It also represented value for money. Further research could explore how the availability of virtual health services can lead to reduced utilization of healthcare resources among different groups of patients.

BackgroundPediatric depression is a global concern that has fueled efforts for enhanced detection and treatment engagement. As one example, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends depression screening for adolescents ages 12–18 years. While many health systems have implemented components of depression screening protocols, there is limited evidence of effective follow-up for pediatric depression. A key barrier is timely team communication and coordination across clinicians and staff within and across service areas for prompt service linkage. However, team effectiveness interventions have been shown to improve team processes and outcomes and can be applied in healthcare settings.MethodsThis project aims to refine and test a team communication training implementation strategy to improve implementation of an existing pediatric depression screening protocol in a large pediatric healthcare system. The team will be defined as part of the study but is expected to include medical assistants, nurses, physicians, and behavioral health clinicians within and across departments. The implementation strategy will target team mechanisms at the team-level (i.e., intra-organizational alignment and implementation climate) and team member-level (i.e., communication, coordination, psychological safety, and shared cognition). First, the project will use mixed methods to refine the team training strategy to fit the organizational context and workflows. Next, a hybrid type 3 implementation-effectiveness pilot trial will assess the initial effectiveness of the team communication training (implementation strategy) paired with the current universal depression screening protocol (clinical intervention) on implementation outcomes (i.e., feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, workflow efficiency) and clinical/services outcomes (increased frequency of needed screening and reduced time to service linkage). Finally, the study will assess mechanisms at the team and team member levels that may affect implementation outcomes.DiscussionTeam communication training is hypothesized to lead to improved, efficient, and effective decision-making to increase the compliance with depression screening and timely service linkage. Findings are expected to yield better understanding and examples of how to optimize team communication to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the pediatric depression screening-to-treatment cascade. This should also culminate in improved implementation outcomes including patient engagement critical to address the youth mental health crisis.Trial registrationNCT06527196.Trial Sponsor: University of California San Diego.

BackgroundHIV clinical guidelines recommend hypertension detection and management to lower cardiovascular disease risk, but these have not been effectively implemented for people living with HIV (PWH). Addressing this implementation gap requires community-engaged implementation studies focused on addressing implementation barriers specific to the HIV care context.MethodsThis protocol describes a type 2 effectiveness-implementation hybrid study conducted in nine primary care clinics in Johannesburg. The study will evaluate the effect of implementation strategies on guideline-recommended blood pressure assessment and management in HIV clinics and the effects of assessment/management on patient blood pressure. A stepped-wedge, cluster randomized study design was used to randomize clinics to the time at which they receive the implementation strategies and patient intervention. The implementation strategies tested include identifying and preparing care champions, changing record systems, conducting ongoing training, providing audit and feedback, and changing the physical structure/equipment. The patient intervention tested includes detection of elevated blood pressure, educational materials, lifestyle modification advice, and medication where needed. Implementation outcomes include adoption, fidelity (co-primary outcome), cost, and maintenance of the blood pressure assessment protocol in participating clinics, while patient outcomes include reach, effectiveness (co-primary outcome), and long-term effects of the intervention on patient blood pressure. These will be assessed via direct observation, study records, staff logs, medical chart reviews, and patient and healthcare worker surveys. To examine effects on the implementation (intervention fidelity) and effectiveness (patient blood pressure changes) co-primary outcomes, we will use the standard Hussey and Hughes model for analysis of stepped-wedge designs which includes fixed effects for both interventions and time periods, and a random effect for sites. Finally, we will examine the costs for the implementation strategies, healthcare worker time, and patient-facing intervention materials, as well as the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the intervention using study records, patient surveys, and a time and motion assessment.DiscussionThis study will address knowledge gaps around implementation of cardiovascular disease preventive practices in HIV care in South Africa. In doing so, it will provide a dual opportunity to promote evidence-based care in the South African HIV care context and help refine implementation research methods to better serve HIV populations globally.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05846503. Registered on May 6, 2023. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05846503.

BackgroundHip fracture surgery under general or spinal anesthesia is a common procedure for older adults in the United States (US). Although spinal or general anesthesia can be appropriate for many patients, and the choice between anesthesia types is preference-sensitive, shared decision-making is not consistently used by anesthesiologists counseling patients on anesthesia for this procedure. We designed an Option Grid™-style conversation aid, My Anesthesia Choice─Hip Fracture, to promote shared decision making in this interaction. This study will refine the aid and evaluate its implementation and effectiveness in clinical practice.MethodsThe study will be conducted over 2 phases: qualitative interviews with relevant clinicians and patients to refine the aid, followed by a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial of the intervention at 6 settings in the US. Primary outcomes will include the percentage of eligible patients who receive the intervention (intervention reach) and the change in quality of patient/clinician communication (intervention effectiveness). Secondary outcomes addressing other RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) domains will also be collected. Outcomes will be compared between baseline data and an active implementation period and then compared between the active implementation period and a sustainment period. Implementation strategies are guided by three constructs from the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM): intervention, recipients, and implementation and sustainability infrastructure.DiscussionThis is a novel, large-scale trial evaluating and implementing a shared decision-making conversation aid for anesthesia choices. Strong buy-in from site leads and expert advisors will support both the success of implementation and the future dissemination of results and the intervention. Results from this study will inform the broader implementation of this aid for patients with hip fractures and can lead to the development and implementation of similar conversation aids for other anesthesia choices.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06438640

BackgroundDiabetes is a serious public health problem affecting 37.3 million Americans. Diabetes shared medical appointments (SMAs) are an effective strategy for providing diabetes self-management support and education in primary care. However, practices delivering SMAs experience implementation challenges. This analysis examined conditions associated with successful practice implementation of diabetes SMAs in the context of participation in a pragmatic trial.MethodsMixed methods study using qualitative and quantitative data collected from interviews, observations, surveys, and practice-reported data, guided by the practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM). Data were analyzed using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Successful implementation was defined as meeting patient recruitment targets (Reach) during the study period. Participants were clinicians and staff members from 22 primary care practices in Colorado and Missouri, USA.ResultsThe first necessary condition identified from the QCA was the presence of additional resources for patients with diabetes in the practice. Within practices that had these additional resources, we found that a sufficiency condition was the presence of an effective key person to make things happen with the SMAs. A second QCA was conducted to determine conditions underlying the presence of the effective key person (often performing functions of an implementation champion), which revealed factors including low or managed employee turnover, a strong baseline practice culture, and previous experience delivering SMAs.ConclusionsIdentification of key factors necessary and sufficient for implementation of new care processes is important to enhance patient access to evidence-based interventions. This study suggests that practice features and resources have important implications for implementation of diabetes SMAs. There may be opportunities to support practices with SMA implementation by enabling the presence of skilled implementation champions.Trial registrationRegistered at clinicaltrials.gov under trial ID NCT03590041, registered on July 18, 2018.

BackgroundAdolescents and Young Adult (AYA) cancer survivors are at risk for psychological distress due to their unique developmental and medical needs. Healthcare providers can leverage the convenience and appeal of technology to provide supportive care for this vulnerable population. Using evidence-based mindfulness-based mobile interventions as a case example, the goal of this study was to identify key patient-, provider-, and organization-level barriers and facilitators to supportive care and implementing digital health interventions in AYA survivorship care.MethodsTwenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders including AYA survivors (n = 10; between 18–29 years old) and clinical providers and administrators (n = 10). Interviews were transcribed and deductively mapped using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) complementary frameworks.ResultsResults indicated that factors like cost and patients’ needs and resources were prevalent among both survivors and providers. There were key differences between providers and AYA survivors. Providers’ adoption and promotion of digital health interventions were influenced most strongly by contextual factors, including available resources (Inner Setting), culture (Outer Setting), and networks and communications (Outer Setting). On the other hand, survivors emphasized individual and intervention-related factors; they reported that social influence and knowledge influenced their adoption and use of digital health interventions, including meditation apps.ConclusionsThese results identified barriers and facilitators to the adoption of supportive care digital health interventions from multiple stakeholders. Results can be used to guide the development of implementation strategies to improve the uptake of digital health interventions in survivorship care, ultimately improving the psychosocial well-being of AYA cancer survivors.