Understanding Co-Creation in a Research Partnership Programme Exploring Patient-Driven Innovations: A Qualitative Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: Research indicates that successful co-creation depends on a shared understanding of co-creation and its related concepts. However, it also shows that, in practice, views on co-creation and how to do it differ. This study aims to explore how patient innovators and researchers in a partnership research programme understand co-creation and how this understanding changes over time. METHODS: An explorative longitudinal qualitative study was conducted with the 'Patients in the Driver's Seat' partnership research programme. Fifty-eight interviews were performed and analysed using a reflexive thematic approach. FINDINGS: Four different ways of understanding co-creation were identified. These can be instrumentally conceptualized as themes using the inputs-process-outputs model: (1) combining different perspectives, experiences and backgrounds (inputs); (2) deliberately dynamic and exploratory (process); (3) striving for equity, not equality (process); and (4) diverse value creation, tangible and intangible (outputs). Together, these themes represent the varied understandings of co-creation among partnership programme members. CONCLUSIONS: Our study of patient innovators and researchers identified four distinct yet complementary understandings of co-creation. The study suggests that co-creation is the sum of its essential components, which can be divided into inputs, process, and outputs. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study, and the partnership programme it explored, aims to improve the relevance of research for patients and informal caregivers through an improved understanding of the concept of co-creation within research on patient innovation. All patient innovators involved in the programme were invited, as interviewees and researchers, to contribute to the study design and data analysis.

Building resilience: analysis of health care leaders' perspectives on the Covid-19 response in Region Stockholm.

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic has tested health care organizations worldwide. Responses have demonstrated great variation and Sweden has been an outlier in terms of both strategy and how it was enacted, making it an interesting case for further study. The aim of this study was to explore how health care leaders experienced the challenges and responses that emerged during the initial wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, and to analyze these experiences through an organizational resilience lens. METHODS: A qualitative interview study with 12 senior staff members who worked directly with or supervised pandemic efforts. Transcripts were analyzed using traditional content analysis and the codes directed to the Integrated Resilience Attributes Framework to understand what contributed to or hindered organizational resilience, i.e. how organizations achieve their goals by utilizing existing resources during crises. RESULTS/FINDINGS: Organizational resilience was found at the micro (situated) and meso (structural) system levels as individuals and organizations dealt with acute shortages and were forced to rapidly adapt through individual sacrifices, resource management, process management, and communications and relational capacity. Poor systemic resilience related to misaligned responses and a lack of learning from previous experiences, negatively impacted the anticipatory phase and placed greater pressure on individuals and organizations to respond. Conventional crisis leadership could hamper innovation, further cement chronic challenges, and generate a moral tension between centralized directives and clinical microsystem experiences. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic tested the resilience of the health care system, placing undue pressure on micro and meso systems responses. With improved learning capabilities, some of this pressure may be mitigated as it could raise the anticipatory resilience potential, i.e. with better health systems learning, we may need fewer heroes. How crisis leadership could better align decision-making with frontline needs and temper short-term acute needs with a longer-term infinite mindset is worth further study.

Information and support to patients when the waiting time guarantee cannot be fulfilled: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Long waiting times for health care services are a prominent health policy issue. Waiting time guarantees may limit time to assessment and treatment. METHODS: This study aims to investigate the information and support given to patients when the waiting time guarantee cannot be fulfilled from a care provider and administrative management perspective. Semi-structured interviews (N = 28) were conducted with administrative management and care providers (clinic staff and clinic line managers) in specialized clinics in the Stockholm Region, Sweden. Clinics were purposefully sampled for maximum variation in ownership (private, public), complexity of care, geographical location, volume of production, and waiting times. Thematic analysis was applied. RESULTS: Care providers reported that patients received inconsistent information and support with regard to the waiting time guarantee and that information was not adapted to health literacy or individual patient needs. Contrary to local law, they made some patients responsible for finding a new care provider or arranging a new referral. Furthermore, financial interests affected whether patients were referred to other providers. Administrative management steered care providers' informing practices at specific time points (upon establishment of a new unit and after six months of operation). A specific regional support function, Region Stockholm's Care Guarantee Office, helped patients change care providers when long waiting times occurred. However, administrative management perceived that there was no established routine to assist care providers in informing patients. CONCLUSIONS: Care providers did not consider patients' health literacy when informing them about the waiting time guarantee. Administrative management's attempts to provide information and support to care providers are not producing the results they expect. Soft-law regulations and care contracts seem insufficient, and economic mechanisms undermine care providers' willingness to inform patients. The described actions are unable to mitigate the inequality in health care that arises from differences in care-seeking behavior.

Is legal status associated with mental illness among newly arrived refugees in Sweden: an epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: There are about 80 million forcibly displaced people globally. Migrants are at heightened risk for mental illness compared to host country populations. While previous research highlights the need to adequately assess mental illness, few have taken the diversity among newly arrived migrants into account. This study aims to estimate the prevalence and associated risk factors of mental illness among asylum seekers, quota and other refugees in Stockholm, Sweden. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, data was collected as part of a mental health screening initiative integrated into routine health examinations in two health care clinics in Stockholm. Screening was done with the Refugee Health Screener, RHS-13, a validated instrument for assessing mental health in refugee populations. RESULTS: A total of 1163 individuals were eligible for screening, of whom 566 participated (response rate 48.6%). Among the participants, 47.9% indicated symptoms of mental illness. Compared with asylum seekers, the risk of mental illness was lower among quota and other refugees (adjusted odds ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.37-1.00). Female sex, higher age, coming from a middle-income country and low probability of being granted asylum were significant predictors of mental illness. CONCLUSION: Refugee legal status is associated with mental illness. Asylum seekers are at greater risk of mental illness compared to quota and other refugees. Our findings call for screening for mental illness among newly arrived migrants, especially among those with pending residence permits.

A rocky road but worth the drive: A longitudinal qualitative study of patient innovators and researchers cocreating research.

BACKGROUND: Partnership research practices involving various stakeholder groups are gaining ground. Yet, the research community is still exploring how to effectively coproduce research together. This study describes (a) key programme developments in the creation of a 6-year partnership research programme in Sweden, and (b) explores the hopes, expectations, and experiences of patient innovators (i.e., individuals with lived experience as patients or caregivers who drive health innovations) and researchers involved in the programme during the first years. METHODS: We conducted a prospective longitudinal qualitative study spanning the first 2 years of the programme. Data consisted of meeting protocols and interviews with 14 researchers and 6 patient innovators; 39 interviews were carried out in three evenly-spaced rounds. We identified significant events and discussion themes in the meeting protocols and analyzed the interviews using thematic analysis, applying a cross-sectional recurrent approach to track changes over time. FINDINGS: Meeting protocols revealed how several partnership practices (e.g., programme management team, task forces, role description document) were cocreated, supporting the sharing of power and responsibilities among programme members. Based on the analysis of interviews, we created three themes: (1) paving the path to a better tomorrow, reflecting programme members' high expectations; (2) going on a road trip together, reflecting experiences of finding new roles and learning how to cocreate; (3) finding the tempo: from talking to doing, reflecting experiences of managing challenges and becoming productive as a team. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that sharing, respecting, and acknowledging each other's experiences and concerns helps build mutual trust and shape partnership practices. High expectations beyond research productivity suggest that we need to consider outcomes at different levels, from the individual to society, when evaluating the impact of partnership research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The research team included members with formal experiences as researchers and members with lived experiences of being a patient or informal caregiver. One patient innovator coauthored this paper and contributed to all aspects of the research, including the design of the study; production of data (as interviewee); interpretation of findings; and drafting the manuscript.

Now What? Collective Sensemaking and Sensegiving in the Cystic Fibrosis Community in Sweden During the Initial Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic's effects on people's lives and society induced a need for rapid individual and collective sensemaking, including communication forums enabling stakeholders in the health ecosystem to share information, solve problems, and learn. This study specifically focused on the needs of the patients and family caregivers living with cystic fibrosis (CF) or primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD), conditions that lead to chronic infections and inflammation in the airways. We explored how CF and PCD patients, family caregivers, and clinicians collectively received, processed, and used information about COVID-19 to facilitate self-care and health care decisions at the beginning of the pandemic. We applied macrocognitive theory to analyze qualitatively the questions and answers exchanged in a series of six webinars facilitated by a CF learning network at the beginning of the pandemic (March - April 2020). We identified three macrocognitive functions: sensemaking, decision-making, and replanning. We further generated nine themes: (a) understanding the nature of COVID-19, (b) exploring self-care needs and possibilities, (c) understanding health care possibilities, (d) making decisions about prevention and testing, (e) managing COVID-19 within families, (f) adjusting planned care, (g) replanning chronic care management, (h) defining COVID-19 health care strategies, and (i) refining health care policies. The exchange of questions and answers played a central role in facilitating important cognitive processes, which enabled a rapid anticipation of needs and adaptation of services to support patients, family caregivers, and clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A stakeholder analysis of the road transport system in Tanzania using a STAMP control structure.

The way the road transport system is developed in a country affects safety. This study aims to identify the roles and relationships of road transport stakeholders and to explore the understanding of control and feedback mechanisms and associated gaps influencing road safety. A System-Theoretic Accident Model and Processes (STAMP) model was applied to document and interview data (n = 30). Participants emphasised the hindrance of overlapping mandates among stakeholders on the road transport system's operations and underlined the roles of coalitions for road safety as system enablers. Further, the withdrawal of some controls by international agencies can increase system vulnerability. Most importantly, critical control and feedback gaps were shown to increase risks for safety within the road transport system. The findings underscore the complexity of the road transport system and add to the discussion on a system's approach to road safety.Practitioner summary: Using a STAMP methodology, we extensively studied the road transport system in Tanzania. Road transport stakeholders were identified through the review of documents, interviews were conducted, and the main findings were discussed. Control and feedback mechanisms and associated gaps were critically presented, recommendations were proposed, and policy implications were suggested.

Organizational influences on the use of low-value care in primary health care - a qualitative interview study with physicians in Sweden.

AIM: The aim was (1) to explore organizational factors influencing the use of low-value care (LVC) as perceived by primary care physicians and (2) to explore which organizational strategies they believe are useful for reducing the use of LVC. DESIGN: Qualitative study with semi-structured focus group discussions (FGDs) analyzed using qualitative content analysis. SETTING: Six publicly owned primary health care centers in Stockholm. SUBJECTS: The participants were 31 primary care physicians. The number of participants in each FGD varied between 3 and 7. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Categories and subcategories reporting organizational factors perceived to influence the use of LVC and organizational strategies considered useful for reducing the use of LVC. RESULTS: Four types of organizational factors (resources, care processes, improvement activities, and governance) influenced the use of LVC. Resources involved time to care for patients, staff knowledge, and working tools. Care processes included work routines and the ways activities and resources were prioritized in the organization. Improvement activities involved performance measurement and improvement work to reduce LVC. Governance concerned organizational goals, higher-level decision making, and policies. Physicians suggested multiple strategies targeting these factors to reduce LVC, including increased patient-physician continuity, adjusted economic incentives, continuous professional development for physicians, and gatekeeping functions which prevent unnecessary appointments and guide patients to the appropriate point of care. . CONCLUSION: The influence of multiple organizational factors throughout the health-care system indicates that a whole-system approach might be useful in reducing LVC.KEY POINTSWe know little about how organizational factors influence the use of low-value care (LVC) in primary health care.Physicians perceive organizational resources, care processes, improvement activities, and governance as influences on the use of LVC and LVC-reducing strategies.This study provides insights about how these factors influence LVC use.Strategies at multiple levels of the health-care system may be warranted to reduce LVC.

National governance of de-implementation of low-value care: a qualitative study in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: The de-implementation of low-value care (LVC) is important to improving patient and population health, minimizing patient harm and reducing resource waste. However, there is limited knowledge about how the de-implementation of LVC is governed and what challenges might be involved. In this study, we aimed to (1) identify key stakeholders' activities in relation to de-implementing LVC in Sweden at the national governance level and (2) identify challenges involved in the national governance of the de-implementation of LVC. METHODS: We used a purposeful sampling strategy to identify stakeholders in Sweden having a potential role in governing the de-implementation of LVC at a national level. Twelve informants from nine stakeholder agencies/organizations were recruited using snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, transcribed and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four potential activities for governing the de-implementation of LVC at a national level were identified: recommendations, health technology assessment, control over pharmaceutical products and a national system for knowledge management. Challenges involved included various vested interests that result in the maintenance of LVC and a low overall priority of working with the de-implementation of LVC compared with the implementation of new evidence. Ambiguous evidence made it difficult to clearly determine whether a practice was LVC. Unclear roles, where none of the stakeholders perceived that they had a formal mandate to govern the de-implementation of LVC, further contributed to the challenges involved in governing that de-implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Various activities were performed to govern the de-implementation of LVC at a national level in Sweden; however, these were limited and had a lower priority relative to the implementation of new methods. Challenges involved relate to unfavourable change incentives, ambiguous evidence, and unclear roles to govern the de-implementation of LVC. Addressing these challenges could make the national-level governance of de-implementation more systematic and thereby help create favourable conditions for reducing LVC in healthcare.

Primary care physicians' views of standardised care pathways in cancer care: A Swedish qualitative study on implementation experiences.

OBJECTIVE: Primary care physicians (PCPs) recently started using standardised care pathways (PCPs) to refer patients to specialists for diagnostics in Sweden. The aim of the current study is therefore to examine PCPs views of implementing standardised care pathways (SCPs) in cancer care. METHOD: In total, 27 semi-structured interviews (17 individual and 10 group interviews) were conducted within 24 primary care units, including 61 physicians representing the public and private sectors. Interviews were conducted during 2017 and 2018. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Eight themes, including both perceived opportunities and challenges with the SCPs, were identified in the analysis. Most PCPs valued the SCPs, citing that they expedited the referral system and decreased patient waiting time. However, the guidelines were not completely clear leaving PCPs to wonder what constituted an SCP referral, who should initiate the referral, and how PCPs should communicate and collaborate with specialists. CONCLUSION: SCPs were a welcomed organisational change by PCPs, where PCPs thought that the SCPs could help in providing better patient care to potential cancer patients. However, updated guidelines and clarifications within the SCPs are warranted to have increased services for both the patients and medical personnel.

Challenges to ensuring valid and useful waiting time monitoring - a qualitative study in Swedish specialist care.

BACKGROUND: Access to health care is an essential health policy issue. In several countries, waiting time guarantees mandate set time limits for assessment and treatment. High-quality waiting time data are necessary to evaluate and improve waiting times. This study's aim was to investigate health care providers and administrative management professionals' perceptions of validity and usefulness of waiting time reporting in specialist care. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews (n = 28) were conducted with administrative management and care professionals (line managers and care providers) in specialized clinics in the Stockholm Region, Sweden. Clinic-specific data from the waiting time registry was used in the care provider interviews to assess face validity. Clinics were purposefully sampled for maximum variation in complexity of care, volume of production, geographical location, private or public ownership, and local waiting times. Thematic analysis was used. RESULTS: The waiting time registry was perceived to have low validity and usefulness. Perceived validity and usefulness were interconnected, with mechanisms that reinforced the connection. Structural and cognitive barriers to validity included technical and procedural errors, errors caused by role division, misinterpretation of guidelines, diverging interpretations of nonregulated cases and extensive willful manipulation of data. CONCLUSIONS: We identify four misconceptions underpinning the current waiting time reporting system: passive dissemination of guidelines is sufficient as implemented, cognitive load of care providers to report waiting times is negligible, soft-law regulation and presentation of outcome data is sufficient to drive improvement, and self-reported data linked to incentives poses a low risk of data corruption. To counter low validity and usefulness, we propose the following for policy makers and administrative management when developing and implementing waiting time monitoring: communicate guidelines with instructions for operationalization, address barriers to implementation, ensure quality through monitoring of implementation and adherence to guidelines, develop IT ontology together with professionals, avoid parallel measurement infrastructures, ensure waiting times are presented to suit management needs, provide timely waiting time data, enable the study of single cases, minimize manual data entry, and perform spot-checks or external validity checks. Several of these strategies should be transferable to waiting time monitoring in other contexts.

Exploring experiences of implementing standardized cancer patient pathways within investigatory units - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In the implementation of standardized cancer patient pathways (CPPs), the investigatory units, endoscopy, radiology and pathology, are crucial to ensure an eventual cancer diagnosis. However, when evaluating the implementation of CPPs, little attention has been paid to the healthcare professionals working in these units. The aim of this study was to explore experiences of the implementation of CPPs among health professionals in investigatory units. METHODS: This descriptive qualitative study included 55 health professionals working in investigatory units. Participants were interviewed in 2017-2018, and data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The health professionals reported benefits, facilitators and challenges when describing their experiences of implementing CPPs. Benefits included that CPP improved collaboration and increased focus on the patients. Facilitators in the implementation process included pre-existing well-functioning work processes and having supportive functions (e.g. coordinators). Challenges included the lack of staff and clinical equipment, as well as unjustified time-slots and incorrect referrals. CONCLUSIONS: The findings show that most health professionals working in investigatory units' experience benefits with the implementation of CPP, but the lack of resources was especially hard to overcome.

The work of having a chronic condition: development and psychometric evaluation of the distribution of co-care activities (DoCCA) scale.

BACKGROUND: Chronic care involves multiple activities that can be performed by individuals and healthcare staff as well as by other actors and artifacts, such as eHealth services. Thus, chronic care management can be viewed as a system where the individual interacts with people and eHealth services performing activities to maintain or improve health and functioning, called co-care. Yet, the system perspective is not reflected in concepts such as person-centered care and shared decision making. This limits the understanding of individuals' global experience of chronic care management and subsequently the ability to optimize chronic care. The aim of this study was threefold: (1) to propose a theory-based operationalization of co-care for chronic care management, (2) to develop a scale to measure co-care as a distributed system of activities, and (3) to evaluate the scale's psychometric properties. With the theory of distributed cognition as a theoretical underpinning, co-care was operationalized along three dimensions: experience of activities, needs support, and goal orientation. METHODS: Informed by the literature on patient experiences and work psychology, a scale denoted Distribution of Co-Care Activities (DoCCA) was developed with the three conceptualized dimensions, the activities dimension consisting of three sub-factors: demands, unnecessary tasks, and role clarity. It was tested with 113 primary care patients with chronic conditions in Sweden at two time points. RESULTS: A confirmatory factor analysis showed support for a second-order model with the three conceptualized dimensions, with activities further divided into the three sub-factors. Cronbach's alpha values indicated a good to excellent reliability of the subscales, and correlations across time points with panel data indicated satisfactory test-retest reliability. Convergent, concurrent and predictive validity of the scale were, overall, satisfactory. CONCLUSIONS: The psychometric evaluation supports a model consisting of activities (demands, unnecessary tasks, and role clarity), needs support and goal orientation that can be reliably measured with the DoCCA scale. The scale provides a way to assess chronic care management as a system, considering the perspective of the individuals with the chronic condition and how they perceive the work that must be done, across situations, either by themselves or through healthcare, eHealth, or other means.

A typology of useful evidence: approaches to increase the practical value of intervention research.

BACKGROUND: Too often, studies of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in preventive, community, and health care are not sufficiently useful to end users (typically practitioners, patients, policymakers, or other researchers). The ways in which intervention studies are conventionally conducted and reported mean that there is often a shortage of information when an EBI is used in practice. The paper aims to invite the research community to consider ways to optimize not only the trustworthiness but also the research's usefulness in intervention studies. This is done by proposing a typology that provides some approaches to useful EBIs for intervention researchers. The approaches originate from different research fields and are summarized to highlight their potential benefits from a usefulness perspective. MAIN MESSAGE: The typology consists of research approaches to increase the usefulness of EBIs by improving the reporting of four features in intervention studies: (1) the interventions themselves, including core components and appropriate adaptations; (2) strategies to support-high-quality implementation of the interventions; (3) generalizations about the evidence in a variety of contexts; and (4) outcomes based on end users' preferences and knowledge. The research approaches fall into three levels: Description, Analysis, and Design. The first level, Description, outlines what types of information about the intervention and its implementation, context, and outcomes can be helpful for end users. Research approaches under analysis offers alternative ways of analyzing data, increasing the precision of information provided to end users. Approaches summarized under design involve more radical changes and far-reaching implications for how research can provide more useful information. These approaches partly flip the order of efficacy and effectiveness, focusing not on whether an intervention works in highly controlled and optimal circumstances, but first and foremost whether an intervention can be implemented and lead to anticipated outcomes in everyday practice. CONCLUSIONS: The research community, as well as the end users of research, are invited to consider ways to optimize research's usefulness as well as its trustworthiness. Many of the research approaches in the typology are not new, and their contributions to quality have been described for generations - but their contributions to useful knowledge need more attention.

The Value Equation: Three complementary propositions for reconciling fidelity and adaptation in evidence-based practice implementation.

BACKGROUND: There has long been debate about the balance between fidelity to evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and the need for adaptation for specific contexts or particular patients. The debate is relevant to virtually all clinical areas. This paper synthesises arguments from both fidelity and adaptation perspectives to provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges involved, and proposes a theoretical and practical approach for how fidelity and adaptation can optimally be managed. DISCUSSION: There are convincing arguments in support of both fidelity and adaptations, representing the perspectives of intervention developers and internal validity on the one hand and users and external validity on the other. Instead of characterizing fidelity and adaptation as mutually exclusive, we propose that they may better be conceptualized as complimentary, representing two synergistic perspectives that can increase the relevance of research, and provide a practical way to approach the goal of optimizing patient outcomes. The theoretical approach proposed, the "Value Equation," provides a method for reconciling the fidelity and adaptation debate by putting it in relation to the value (V) that is produced. The equation involves three terms: intervention (IN), context (C), and implementation strategies (IS). Fidelity and adaptation determine how these terms are balanced and, in turn, the end product - the value it produces for patients, providers, organizations, and systems. The Value Equation summarizes three central propositions: 1) The end product of implementation efforts should emphasize overall value rather than only the intervention effects, 2) implementation strategies can be construed as a method to create fit between EBIs and context, and 3) transparency is vital; not only for the intervention but for all of the four terms of the equation. There are merits to arguments for both fidelity and adaptation. We propose a theoretical approach, a Value Equation, to reconciling the fidelity and adaptation debate. Although there are complexities in the equation and the propositions, we suggest that the Value Equation be used in developing and testing hypotheses that can help implementation science move toward a more granular understanding of the roles of fidelity and adaptation in the implementation process, and ultimately sustainability of practices that provide value to stakeholders.

Implementing standardized cancer patient pathways (CPPs) - a qualitative study exploring the perspectives of health care professionals.

BACKGROUND: Many countries have implemented standardized cancer patient pathways (CPPs) to reduce waiting times in cancer care and to ensure timely and quick diagnosis as well as treatment. Yet, no studies have explored the implementation process as perceived by the health care professionals working in the CPPs. The aim of this study is to explore the experiences of health care professionals (HPCs) involved in the CPPs. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative design was adopted. Thematic analysis was applied to individual interviews conducted in 2016-2017 with 58 participants working in six different CPPs in Sweden's largest region, covering care for around 2.3 million inhabitants. RESULTS: In general, the health care professionals had a positive attitude towards the implementation of the CPPs. Our findings showed that the CPPs require close collaboration, both between and within different health care professional groups and units, something that was not always probable due to differences in resource capacity. Better dissemination to all relevant professionals, better conceptualization, and equivalent opportunities in terms of resources were identified by the respondents as being important yet lacking in practice. The analysis showed possible negative effects of the CPP, such as crowding-out on other patient groups. CONCLUSION: The CPPs were introduced to address challenges with long waiting times and unequal cancer care. By exploring the experiences of health care professionals involved in the implementation of CPPs, our findings show challenges with multi-level coordination and collaboration, policy dissemination, and resource constraints. The analysis also showed that the implementation of CPPs risk being accompanied by unintended effects such as longer waiting times for other patients and patient groups in need of the same health care resources. The results shed light on and contribute to an understanding of the challenges, opportunities and ways forward.

Implementation of a national policy for improving health and social care: a comparative case study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive policies are becoming common for addressing wicked problems in health and social care. Success of these policies often varies between target organizations. This variation can often be attributed to contextual factors. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the conditions for successful policy implementation and how context influences this process. The aim of this study was to investigate county-level actors' perspectives on the implementation of a comprehensive national policy in three Swedish counties. The policy focused on developing quality of care for elderly based on the use of national quality registries (NQRs) and to improve coordination of care. METHODS: A comparative case study approach was used. Data was collected longitudinally through documents and interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided the analysis. RESULTS: All three counties shared the view that the policy addressed important issues. Still, there was variation regarding how it was perceived and managed. Adaptable features-i.e., NQRs and improvement coaches-were perceived as relevant and useful. However, the counties differed in their perceptions of another policy component-i.e., senior management program-as an opportunity or a disturbance. This program, while tackling complex issues of collaboration, fell short in recognizing the counties' pre-existing conditions and needs and also offered few opportunities for adaptations. Performance bonuses and peer pressure were strong incentives for all counties to implement the policy, despite the poor fit of policy content and local context. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive health policies aiming to address wicked problems have better chances of succeeding if the implementation includes assessments of the target organizations' implementation capacity as well as the implicit quid pro quos involved in policy development. Special attention is warranted regarding the use of financial incentives when dealing with wicked problems since the complexity makes it difficult to align incentives with the goals and to assess potential consequences. Other important aspects in the implementation of such policies are the use of collaborative approaches to engage stakeholders with differing perspectives, and the tailoring of policy communication to facilitate shared understanding and commitment.

What happened and why? A programme theory-based qualitative evaluation of a healthcare-academia partnership reform in primary care.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in and demands for partnerships between academia and healthcare practices. Few empirical studies have described the influence of such partnerships from a practice perspective. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a reform launched to increase integration between primary care and academia and to identify potential reasons for why the observed impact occurred in three areas targeted by the reform: research, student education, and continued professional development. METHODS: The study was conducted in Stockholm County, the largest healthcare region in Sweden, at the introduction of a partnership between primary care and academia, including eight coordinating centres and approximately 500 surrounding primary care units. A programme theory-based qualitative approach to evaluation was used, building on document analysis, and in-depth interviews with the centre managers (n = 6) and coordinators (n = 8) conducted 42-66 months after the initiation of the reform. RESULTS: The analysis showed that the reform had some impact on all three areas targeted by the reform: research, student education, and continued professional development. The input that contributed most extensively to the impact was the establishment of facilitating roles. Most changes occurred at the coordinating centres and primarily in the area of student education. The effect on student education was primarily due to having prior experience in this area and perceptions of timely benefits of students to care practice. CONCLUSIONS: Partnerships between primary care and academia hold the potential of practice impact. To increase integration between primary care and academia, the components of the integration must be understandable and relevant for primary care practitioners, and importantly, compliant with delivery of primary care.

Building implementation capacity (BIC): a longitudinal mixed methods evaluation of a team intervention.

BACKGROUND: Managers and professionals in health and social care are required to implement evidence-based methods. Despite this, they generally lack training in implementation. In clinical settings, implementation is often a team effort, so it calls for team training. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of the Building Implementation Capacity (BIC) intervention that targets teams of professionals, including their managers. METHODS: A non-randomized design was used, with two intervention cases (each consisting of two groups). The longitudinal, mixed-methods evaluation included pre-post and workshop-evaluation questionnaires, and interviews following Kirkpatrick's four-level evaluation framework. The intervention was delivered in five workshops, using a systematic implementation method with exercises and practical working materials. To improve transfer of training, the teams' managers were included. Practical experiences were combined with theoretical knowledge, social interactions, reflections, and peer support. RESULTS: Overall, the participants were satisfied with the intervention (first level), and all groups increased their self-rated implementation knowledge (second level). The qualitative results indicated that most participants applied what they had learned by enacting new implementation behaviors (third level). However, they only partially applied the implementation method, as they did not use the planned systematic approach. A few changes in organizational results occurred (fourth level). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention had positive effects with regard to the first two levels of the evaluation model; that is, the participants were satisfied with the intervention and improved their knowledge and skills. Some positive changes also occurred on the third level (behaviors) and fourth level (organizational results), but these were not as clear as the results for the first two levels. This highlights the fact that further optimization is needed to improve transfer of training when building teams' implementation capacity. In addition to considering the design of such interventions, the organizational context and the participants' characteristics may also need to be considered to maximize the chances that the learned skills will be successfully transferred to behaviors.

Feasibility of referral to a therapist for assessment of psychiatric problems in primary care - an interview study.

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety disorders are common in primary care. Comorbidities are frequent, and the diagnoses can be difficult. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) can be a support in the clinical examination of patients with complex problems. However, for family practitioners (FPs), time and perceptions about structured interviews can be barriers to the MINI. An inter-professional teamwork process where FPs refer a patient to a therapist for a MINI assessment represents one way in which to address the problem. The results are fed back to the FPs for diagnosis and treatment decisions. The purposes of this study were to explore if the process was feasible for FPs, patients and therapists in Swedish primary care, and to identify factors influencing the process, using the COM-B model. METHODS: FPs at two primary care centers (PHCC) in Stockholm were offered the opportunity to refer patients to in-house therapists. Semi-structured interviews or focus groups were conducted with 22 patients, 17 FPs and three therapists to capture their experiences and perceptions. Inductive content analysis for each group of participants was followed by triangulation across groups. Finally, the categories obtained were fitted to the components in the COM-B. RESULTS: Therapists at both PHCCs conducted the MINI. The intended process was adopted at one PHCC. At the second PHCC, the responsibilities for the diagnosis and treatment of patients referred were transferred to the therapist. The patients were satisfied, as they appreciated multi-professional examinations. The FPs' competence in psychiatry, actual access to therapists, beliefs that the referrals saved the FPs time and effort, and established habits influenced whether patients were referred. Existing routines and professional expectations for work content influenced the degree of cooperation between the therapists and the FPs. CONCLUSIONS: An inter-professional diagnostic process where FPs refer patients to a therapist for assessment and the results are fed back to the FPs can be feasible. Feasibility depends on access to a therapist, the perceptions of roles and competences among FPs and therapists, and strategies for supporting teamwork.