Integrating stakeholder feedback into the design of a peer-delivered primary care wellness program: A rapid qualitative study.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Individuals seen in Primary Care with behavioral health concerns who decline behavioral health treatment may benefit from the support of peers (consumers in recovery from behavioral health concerns employed to support other consumers). Whole Health STEPS is a new intervention for Veterans in Primary Care with behavioral health concerns which combines essential elements of peers' role and the Whole Health model using a stepped-care design. We incorporated stakeholder feedback in the Whole Health STEPS design to improve fit with Veterans, peers, and primary care settings. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with VA staff using questions derived from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Participants were recruited via a maximum variation strategy across a national sample and interviewed between January 2021-April 2021. The analytic design was a rapid qualitative analysis. Interviews addressed design decisions and potential barriers and facilitators to future implementation. Then, we made adaptations to Whole Health STEPS and catalogued changes using the Framework for Adaptations and Modifications-Enhanced (FRAME). A VA peer conducted the interviews, participated in analyses, assisted with design modifications, and co-wrote this paper. RESULTS: Sixteen staff members from 9 VA primary care peer programs participated (8 peers and 8 supervisors/administrators). Feedback themes included capitalizing on peer skills (e.g., navigation), ensuring patient-centered and flexible design, and making it easy and efficient (e.g., reducing session length). Understanding the structure of primary care peers' roles and their interactions with other programs helped us identify role conflicts (e.g., overlap with Whole Health Coaches and Health Behavior Coordinators), which led to design modifications to carve out a unique role for Whole Health STEPS. Staff also made recommendations about marketing materials and training tools to support Whole Health STEPS roll out. CONCLUSIONS: Feedback from frontline staff, including peers, in the design process was crucial to identifying essential modifications that would not have been possible after initial trials without re-evaluating efficacy due to the extent of the changes. Whole Health STEPS was adapted to fit within a range of program structures, emphasize peers' unique contributions, and streamline delivery. Lessons learned can be applied to other interventions.