A scoping review of evidence on routine cervical cancer screening in South Asia: investigating factors affecting adoption and implementation.

NEED: Cervical cancer is a major global public health issue, particularly affecting low and middle-income countries, distinctly in the South Asian region. This geographical region lacks a well-organized routine cervical screening program. Consequently, this scoping review aimed to investigate the evidence on factors influencing the adoption and implementation of routine cervical cancer screening in South Asia. METHODS: Adopting the "Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al." methodology, databases such as PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus were scrutinized in the pursuit of relevant studies. Subsequently, the collected data were synthesized by adopting the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) model. RESULTS: A total of 837 records were initially identified and screened for eligibility, including 55 studies. The successful adoption and implementation of cervical cancer screening in South Asia encounter numerous obstacles within the health system, including the absence of a comprehensive program protocol for screening, inadequate health infrastructure, and the presence of multiple sociocultural factors, such as social stigma, low levels of education, and concerns related to modesty. CONCLUSION: To optimize adoption and implementation, it is imperative to construct a customized policy framework that incorporates a risk communication strategy tailored to the specific contexts of these nations. Drawing insights from the experiences of South Asian countries in executing cervical cancer screening programs can inform the formulation of policies for similar healthcare initiatives aimed at facilitating the expansion of HPV vaccination efforts.

Identifying factors and causal chains associated with optimal implementation of Lynch syndrome tumor screening: An application of coincidence analysis.

PURPOSE: This study compared Lynch syndrome universal tumor screening (UTS) across multiple health systems (some of which had 2 or more distinct UTS programs) to understand multilevel factors that may affect the successful implementation of complex programs. METHODS: Data from 66 stakeholder interviews were used to conduct multivalue coincidence analysis and identify key factors that consistently make a difference in whether UTS programs were implemented and optimized at the system level. RESULTS: The selected coincidence analysis model revealed combinations of conditions that distinguish 4 optimized UTS programs, 10 nonoptimized programs, and 4 systems with no program. Fully optimized UTS programs had both a maintenance champion and a positive inner setting. Two independent paths were unique to nonoptimized programs: (1) positive attitudes and a mixed inner setting or (2) limited planning and engaging among stakeholders. Negative views about UTS evidence or lack of knowledge about UTS led to a lack of planning and engaging, which subsequently prevented program implementation. CONCLUSION: The model improved our understanding of program implementation in health care systems and informed the creation of a toolkit to guide UTS implementation, optimization, and changes. Our findings and toolkit may serve as a use case to increase the successful implementation of other complex precision health programs.

Barriers and facilitators to national guideline implementation for palliative cancer care in a Danish cross-sectoral healthcare setting: A qualitative study of healthcare professionals' experiences.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with incurable cancer should receive general palliative care according to their needs, as provided through collaboration between hospital departments, municipalities, and general practices and as outlined in national guidelines. However, the implementation of general palliative care in Denmark has been inadequate. This study aimed to investigate the healthcare professionals' (HCPs') perceptions on barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of the Danish National Guideline (NG) for general palliative care. METHODS: This descriptive, qualitative study was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Qualitative focus group and individual interviews were conducted with 23 HCPs. The interview guide, coding, analysis, and reporting of findings were developed within the CFIR framework. RESULTS: The main barriers to implementing NG were as follows: lack of knowledge about the NG, lack of an implementation plan, and insufficient communication and collaboration across sectors. Important facilitators were as follows: HCP motivation to meet palliative care needs, HCPs with special functions taking responsibility for incorporating NG into local guidelines, and the role of district nurses specialised in palliative care as opinion leaders providing security and continuity for the HCPs working in palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: To address the needs of patients with incurable cancer, greater efforts are required on implementing general palliative care. Although HCPs in our setting were motivated to improve NG implementation, financial resources and strategies are necessary to ensure sufficient knowledge uptake and accommodate identified barriers in order to translate the NG into practice.

Healthcare Providers' Perspectives on a Novel Couple-Based HIV Treatment Intervention: A Qualitative Assessment of the Facilitators, Barriers, and Proposed Improvements to Implementation in Zambézia Province, Mozambique.

Mozambique has one of the world's highest HIV/AIDS burdens. Despite significant investment in HIV care and treatment, pregnant and lactating women's retention in care remains suboptimal. One reason for poor maternal retention is lack of male partner support. We tested an interventional couple-based HIV care and treatment, including joint clinical appointments and couple-based educational and support sessions provided by a health counselor and peer educators, respectively. Healthcare providers delivering care for seroconcordant individuals were interviewed regarding their perspectives on facilitators and barriers to the couple-based intervention implementation. Analysis of interview responses was done using MAXQDA. Results pertaining to providers' perspectives on implementation and intervention characteristics were organized, interpreted, and contextualized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 2.0), while providers' suggestions for improvements were coded and organized apart from CFIR. Providers felt the intervention was largely compatible with the local culture, and offered a significant advantage over standard individual-based care by facilitating patient follow-up and reducing wait times by prioritizing couples for services. They also believed it facilitated HIV treatment access through the provision of couple-based counseling that encouraged supportive behaviors towards retention. However, providers reported insufficient privacy to deliver couple-based care at some health facilities and concerns that women in difficult relationships may struggle to meaningfully participate. They suggested providing sessions in alternate clinic settings and offering a limited number of women-only visits. The facilitators and barriers described here contribute to informing the design and implementation of future couple-based interventions to improve HIV care for seroconcordant expectant couples.

"Because that is the right thing to do": A focus group study of Australian expert perspectives on offering smoking cessation support in lung cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening (LCS) trials, targeting people with smoking history, have demonstrated reduced mortality. How to optimally embed evidence-based smoking cessation support in LCS, including in Australia, needs to be better understood. We sought experts' perspectives to identify potential barriers and effective implementation strategies. METHODS: Perceptions of providing smoking cessation support in LCS were elicited in 24 focus groups and three individual interviews with clinicians, cancer screening program managers/policymakers, and researchers during 2021. We conducted framework analysis and mapped key topics to the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Experts (N=84 participants) strongly supported capitalising on an "opportune time" for smoking cessation and new LCS participant contact opportunities throughout the screening and assessment pathway. Many advocated for adapting existing cessation resources to the LCS setting and providing support without participant costs. Experts generally considered referral alone to established programs (e.g., telephone Quitline) as insufficient, but likely helpful in follow-up, and dedicated cessation specialist roles as essential. Broader cessation messaging (via mass media/community channels) was also suggested to reinforce individualised support. Experts described inherent alignment, and an ethical responsibility, to deliver smoking cessation as a core LCS component. It was suggested that LCS-eligible participants' varied experiences of stigma, health literacy, and motivation, be considered in cessation supports. Primary care support and individualised interventions were suggested to facilitate implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Experts considered smoking cessation support essential in LCS. The expert-identified and multi-level implementation strategies described here can directly inform smoking cessation-specific planning for Australia's forthcoming National LCS Program. IMPLICATIONS: The international literature includes few examples considering how best to provide smoking cessation support within a lung cancer screening (LCS) program in advance of program commencement. Our analysis, using the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, is one of the first to explore experts' perspectives within this context. Experts identified multiple implementation barriers to providing smoking cessation support within and outside of an Australian LCS program, including key work infrastructure barriers, and advocated for providing tailored interventions within this program. Our foundational work in a new targeted screening program's pre-implementation phase will allow international comparisons to be made.

Multilevel perspectives on the implementation of the collaborative care model for depression and anxiety in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) is an evidence-based mental health treatment in primary care. A greater understanding of the determinants of successful CoCM implementation, particularly the characteristics of multi-level implementers, is needed. METHODS: This study was a process evaluation of the Collaborative Behavioral Health Program (CBHP) study (NCT04321876) in which CoCM was implemented in 11 primary care practices. CBHP implementation included screening for depression and anxiety, referral to CBHP, and treatment with behavioral care managers (BCMs). Interviews were conducted 4- and 15-months post-implementation with BCMs, practice managers, and practice champions (primary care clinicians). We used framework-guided rapid qualitative analysis with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, Version 2.0, focused on the Individuals domain, to analyze response data. These data represented the roles of Mid-Level Leaders (practice managers), Implementation Team Members (clinicians, support staff), Innovation Deliverers (BCMs), and Innovation Recipients (primary care/CBHP patients) and their characteristics (i.e., Need, Capability, Opportunity, Motivation). RESULTS: Mid-level leaders (practice managers) were enthusiastic about CBHP (Motivation), appreciated integrating mental health services into primary care (Need), and had time to assist clinicians (Opportunity). Although CBHP lessened the burden for implementation team members (clinicians, staff; Need), some were hesitant to reallocate patient care (Motivation). Innovation deliverers (BCMs) were eager to deliver CBHP (Motivation) and confident in assisting patients (Capability); their opportunity to deliver CBHP could be limited by clinician referrals (Opportunity). Although CBHP alleviated barriers for innovation recipients (patients; Need), it was difficult to secure services for those with severe conditions (Capability) and certain insurance types (Opportunity). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, respondents favored sustaining CoCM and highlighted the positive impacts on the practice, health care team, and patients. Participants emphasized the benefits of integrating mental health services into primary care and how CBHP lessened the burden on clinicians while providing patients with comprehensive care. Barriers to CBHP implementation included ensuring appropriate patient referrals, providing treatment for patients with higher-level needs, and incentivizing clinician engagement. Future CoCM implementation should include strategies focused on education and training, encouraging clinician buy-in, and preparing referral paths for patients with more severe conditions or diverse needs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT04321876). Registered: March 25,2020. Retrospectively registered.

Barriers and facilitators when implementing midwifery continuity of carer: a narrative analysis of the international literature.

BACKGROUND: Midwifery continuity of carer (MCoC) is a model of care in which the same midwife or small team of midwives supports women throughout pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period. The model has been prioritised by policy makers in a number of high-income countries, but widespread implementation and sustainability has proved challenging. METHODS: In this narrative review and synthesis of the global literature on the implementation and sustainability of midwifery continuity of carer, we identify barriers to, and facilitators of, this model of delivering maternity care. By mapping existing research evidence onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we identify factors for organisations to consider when planning and implementing midwifery continuity of carer as well as gaps in the current research evidence. RESULTS: Analysing international evidence using the CFIR shows that evidence around midwifery continuity of carer implementation is patchy and fragmented, and that the impetus for change is not critically examined. Existing literature pays insufficient attention to core aspects of the innovation such as the centrality of on call working arrangements and alignment with the professional values of midwifery. There is also limited attention to the political and structural contexts into which midwifery continuity of carer is introduced. CONCLUSIONS: By synthesizing international research evidence with the CFIR, we identify factors for organisations to consider when planning and implementing midwifery continuity of carer. We also call for more systematic and contextual evidence to aid understanding of the implementation or non-implementation of midwifery continuity of carer. Existing evidence should be critically evaluated and used more cautiously in support of claims about the model of care and its implementation, especially when implementation is occurring in different settings and contexts to the research being cited.

Barriers and facilitators of improved nutritional support for patients newly diagnosed with cancer: a pre-implementation study.

BACKGROUND: Disease-related malnutrition affects a significant number of patients with cancer and poses a major social problem worldwide. Despite both global and national guidelines to prevent and treat malnutrition, the prevalence is high, ranging from 20 to 70% in all patients with cancer. This study aimed to explore the current practice of nutritional support for patients with cancer at a large university hospital in Norway and to explore potential barriers and facilitators of the intervention in the Green Approach to Improved Nutritional support for patients with cancer (GAIN), prior to implementation in a clinical setting. METHODS: The study used individual interviews and a focus group discussion to collect data. Study participants included different healthcare professionals and patients with cancer treated at a nutrition outpatient clinic. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide the thematic data analysis. RESULTS: Barriers connected to the current nutritional support were limited resources and undefined roles concerning responsibility for providing nutritional support among healthcare professionals. Facilitators included a desire for change regarding the current nutritional practice. The GAIN intervention was perceived as feasible for patients and healthcare professionals. Potential barriers included limited knowledge of technology, lack of motivation among patients, and a potential added burden experienced by the participating patients. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of the potential barriers and facilitators of the current nutritional support to patients with cancer will be used to plan the implementation of improved nutritional support in a randomized controlled trial for patients with cancer prior to clinical implementation. The current findings may be of value to others trying to implement either or both nutritional support and digital application tools in a clinical healthcare setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the National Institutes of Health Clinical trials 08/09/22. The identification code is NCT05544318.

Strategies for scaling up pre-ART advanced HIV disease screening at a secondary referral hospital-Malawi: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended Advanced HIV Disease screening package, remains poor in most settings with limited resources. More than 50% of newly diagnosed-HIV clients are missed on screening as a result of implementation barriers. It is important to mitigate the existing barriers and leverage enablers' inorder to maximize uptake of the advanced HIV disease screening. This study aimed to identify strategies for scaling up implementation of advanced HIV disease screening among newly HIV-diagnosed clients in pre-ART phase using a Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-Expert Recommendation for Implementing Change (CFIR-ERIC) guiding tool. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted at Rumphi district hospital in Malawi (August - September, 2023). Two sessions of Focus group discussions (FDGs) involving key stakeholders were facilitated to identify specific strategies following the initial study on exploration of barriers and facilitators of advanced HIV disease screening package. Participants comprised healthcare providers, purposively selected from key hospital departments. A deductive approach was used to analyze FDG transcripts where emerging themes were mapped with ERIC list of strategies. CFIR-ERIC Matching tool version 1.0, was used to generate an output of the most to least expert-endorsed Level 1 and Level 2 strategies. FINDINGS: About 25 key healthcare workers participated in FDGs. Overall, 6 Level 1 strategies (≥ 50% expert endorsement score) and 4 Level 2 strategies (≥ 20%, ≤ 49% expert endorsement score) were identified, targeting barriers associated with availability of resources, intervention complexity, access to knowledge and information, communication; and implementation leads. Most of the reported strategies were cross-cutting and aimed at enhancing clinical knowledge of the intervention (distributing training materials, educational meetings), developing stakeholders' interrelations (network weaving) as well as improving clinical workflow (environmental restructuring). Use of evaluative and iterative strategies such as monthly data collection for evaluation were also recommended as part of continuous improvement while an AHD coordinator was recommended to be formally appointed inorder to spearhead coordination of AHD screening services. CONCLUSION: Through the involvement of key stakeholders and the use of CFIR-ERIC matching tool, this study has identified cross-cutting strategies that if well implemented, can help to mitigate contextual barriers and leverage enablers for an improved delivery of AHD screening package.

Providers' perspectives of barriers and facilitators to scale-up of mental health care in the public health delivery system of Mozambique: a qualitative inquiry.

BACKGROUND: A central challenge to closing the mental health treatment gap in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is determining the most effective pathway for delivering evidence-based mental health services. We are conducting a cluster-randomized, Type 2 hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial across 20 districts of Mozambique called the Partnerships in Research to Implement and Disseminate Sustainable and Scalable EBPs (PRIDE) program. Following training of nonspecialized providers in facilitation of evidence-based treatments for mental health and informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we identified how PRIDE compares to care as usual and the perceived barriers and facilitators of implementation and modifications needed for widescale service delivery and scale-up. METHODS: We conducted rapid ethnographic assessment using freelisting among 34 providers, followed by four focus group discussions (n = 29 participants) with a subsample of psychiatric technicians and primary care providers from 14 districts in Nampula Province. We used Thematic Analysis to inductively apply open codes to transcripts and then deductively applied the CFIR domains and constructs to organize open codes. RESULTS: The main Outer Setting constructs relevant to implementation were recognition that patient mental health needs were significant. Additionally, numerous community-level characteristics were identified as barriers, including distance between clinics; shortage of providers; and low awareness of mental health problems, stigma, and discrimination among community members towards those with mental health struggles. The PRIDE program was perceived to offer a relative advantage over usual care because of its use of task-sharing and treating mental illness in the community. PRIDE addressed Inner Setting barriers of having available resources and training and provider low self-efficacy and limited knowledge of mental illness. Providers recommended leadership engagement to give support for supervision of other task-shared professionals delivering mental healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care providers and psychiatric technicians in Mozambique perceived the relative advantage of the PRIDE program to address mental health treatment access barriers and offered recommendations for successful sustainment and scale up of integrated mental health care.

Improving care for veterans' environmental exposure concerns: applications of the consolidated framework for implementation research in program evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems, like the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), need policies and procedures for delivering care to special populations including those with environmental exposure concerns. Despite being common and pervasive, especially among Veterans, environmental exposures are largely overlooked by healthcare providers. To successfully implement care for Veterans with military environmental exposure concerns, an understanding of contextual factors impeding care on the provider (e.g., knowledge and beliefs) and organizational (e.g., leadership's priorities) level is needed. Our goal was to conduct an operational needs assessment of providers to examine provider educational needs regarding Veterans' military environmental exposure concerns. METHODS: In 2020, we surveyed 2,775 VA medical and behavioral health providers. Our cross-sectional assessment was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and assessed barriers and facilitators to the uptake and application of knowledge regarding interdisciplinary care for environmental exposure concerns. The web-based survey was emailed to providers across the United States representing a variety of disciplines and practice settings to reflect the interdisciplinary approach to care for environmental exposures. We used bivariate statistics to investigate the intervention setting, inner setting, and individual characteristics of providers regarding care for environmental exposure concerns. RESULTS: Approximately one-third of VA medical and behavioral health clinicians report low to no knowledge of environmental exposure concerns. We find 88% of medical and 91% of behavioral health providers report they are ready to learn more about environmental exposures. Half of medical and behavioral health providers report they have access to information on environmental exposures and less than half report care for environmental exposures is a priority where they practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest interdisciplinary providers' knowledge of and discussion with Veterans about environmental exposures may be influenced by contextual factors at the organizational level. Considering individual-level factors and organizational culture is important to consider when supporting care for environmental exposures. Since this needs assessment, VA established targeted programs to improve care related to military environmental exposures in response to legislation; future exploration of these same variables or contextual factors is warranted.

Improving acute myocardial infarction care in northern Tanzania: barrier identification and implementation strategy mapping.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based care for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) reduces morbidity and mortality. Prior studies in Tanzania identified substantial gaps in the uptake of evidence-based AMI care. Implementation science has been used to improve uptake of evidence-based AMI care in high-income settings, but interventions to improve quality of AMI care have not been studied in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants from key stakeholder groups (patients, providers, and healthcare administrators) in northern Tanzania. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted using a guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interview transcripts were coded to identify barriers to AMI care, using the 39 CFIR constructs. Barriers relevant to emergency department (ED) AMI care were retained, and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) tool was used to match barriers with Level 1 recommendations for targeted implementation strategies. RESULTS: Thirty key stakeholders, including 10 patients, 10 providers, and 10 healthcare administrators were enrolled. Thematic analysis identified 11 barriers to ED-based AMI care: complexity of AMI care, cost of high-quality AMI care, local hospital culture, insufficient diagnostic and therapeutic resources, inadequate provider training, limited patient knowledge of AMI, need for formal implementation leaders, need for dedicated champions, failure to provide high-quality care, poor provider-patient communication, and inefficient ED systems. Seven of these barriers had 5 strong ERIC recommendations: access new funding, identify and prepare champions, conduct educational meetings, develop educational materials, and distribute educational materials. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple barriers across several domains limit the uptake of evidence-based AMI care in northern Tanzania. The CFIR-ERIC mapping approach identified several targeted implementation strategies for addressing these barriers. A multi-component intervention is planned to improve uptake of evidence-based AMI care in Tanzania.

Barriers to and facilitators of implementing colorectal cancer screening evidence-based interventions in federally qualified health centers: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to increase colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) uptake in Texas federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), which serve a predominantly vulnerable population with high demands. Empirical support exists for evidence-based interventions (EBIs) that are proven to increase CRCS; however, as with screening, their use remains low in FQHCs. This study aimed to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). METHODS: We recruited employees involved in implementing CRCS EBIs (e.g., physicians) using data from a CDC-funded program to increase the CRCS in Texas FQHCs. Through 23 group interviews, we explored experiences with practice change, CRCS promotion and quality improvement initiatives, organizational readiness, the impact of COVID-19, and the use of CRCS EBIs (e.g., provider reminders). We used directed content analysis with CFIR constructs to identify the critical facilitators and barriers. RESULTS: The analysis revealed six primary CFIR constructs that influence implementation: information technology infrastructure, innovation design, work infrastructure, performance measurement pressure, assessing needs, and available resources. Based on experiences with four recommended EBIs, participants described barriers, including data limitations of electronic health records and the design of reminder alerts targeted at deliverers and recipients of patient or provider reminders. Implementation facilitators include incentivized processes to increase provider assessment and feedback, existing clinic processes (e.g., screening referrals), and available resources to address patient needs (e.g., transportation). Staff buy-in emerged as an implementation facilitator, fostering a conducive environment for change within clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Using CFIR, we identified barriers, such as the burden of technology infrastructure, and facilitators, such as staff buy-in. The results, which enhance our understanding of CRCS EBI implementation in FQHCs, provide insights into designing nuanced, practical implementation strategies to improve cancer control in a critical setting.

Pre-implementation planning for a sepsis intervention in a large learning health system: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis survivors experience high morbidity and mortality. Though recommended best practices have been established to address the transition and early post hospital needs and promote recovery for sepsis survivors, few patients receive recommended post-sepsis care. Our team developed the Sepsis Transition and Recovery (STAR) program, a multicomponent transition intervention that leverages virtually-connected nurses to coordinate the application of evidence-based recommendations for post-sepsis care with additional clinical support from hospitalist and primary care physicians. In this paper, we present findings from a qualitative pre-implementation study, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), of factors to inform successful STAR implementation at a large learning health system prior to effectiveness testing as part of a Type I Hybrid trial. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 16) with 8 administrative leaders and 8 clinicians. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed in ATLAS.ti using a combination deductive/inductive strategy based on CFIR domains and constructs and the Constant Comparison Method. RESULTS: Six facilitators and five implementation barriers were identified spanning all five CFIR domains (Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals and Process). Facilitators of STAR included alignment with health system goals, fostering stakeholder engagement, sharing STAR outcomes data, good communication between STAR navigators and patient care teams/PCPs, clinician promotion of STAR with patients, and good rapport and effective communication between STAR navigators and patients, caregivers, and family members. Barriers of STAR included competing demands for staff time and resources, insufficient communication and education of STAR's value and effectiveness, underlying informational and technology gaps among patients, lack of patient access to community resources, and patient distrust of the program and/or health care. CONCLUSIONS: CFIR proved to be a robust framework for examining facilitators and barriers for pre-implementation planning of post-sepsis care programs within diverse hospital and community settings in a large LHS. Conducting a structured pre-implementation evaluation helps researchers design with implementation in mind prior to effectiveness studies and should be considered a key component of Type I hybrid trials when feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04495946 . Registered August 3, 2020.

The health service perspective on determinants of success in allied health student research project collaborations: a qualitative study guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

BACKGROUND: A research culture in health care organisations is associated with improved healthcare performance. Allied health (AH) students undertake research training as part of their professional degree qualifications. This may include participation in research projects, sometimes undertaken in association with health services. Co-supervision of these projects by health service staff provides research capacity building opportunities and staff-centred outcomes for the individuals involved, as well as improvements in clinical knowledge and practice within the local area. Also, publications from these projects contribute to the wider evidence base. Identification of barriers and facilitators to engagement in, and conduct of, these projects may optimise systems for improved health service outcomes. METHODS: This formative evaluation used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide analysis of qualitative data obtained from semi-structured interviews with health service-employed allied health professionals, including clinicians and research fellows, who had supervised students on clinical-related research placements within the previous five years. RESULTS: Eleven AH clinicians described 18 collaborative projects with 24 students from five AH disciplines across four universities. Three health service-employed AH research fellows described their involvement in these and other student research projects. Twenty key determinant constructs were identified and mapped across all five CFIR domains. Facilitators included health service cosmopolitanism, project adaptability and implementation climate (compatibility). Health service-employed research fellows provided readiness for implementation and a facilitator for project execution. The main barriers identified were cost to staff in workload and personal time and aspects related to project complexity. Differing student characteristics affected the relative advantage of collaborative projects in positive and negative manners. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the facilitators and barriers to the conduct of collaborative AH student research projects. Addressing these determinants when establishing each new project may enable health services to optimise communication, role delineation and project success, and thus ultimately, healthcare performance and patient care.

A pre-implementation examination of barriers and facilitators of an electronic prospective surveillance model for cancer rehabilitation: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: An electronic Prospective Surveillance Model (ePSM) uses patient-reported outcomes to monitor symptoms along the cancer pathway for timely identification and treatment. Randomized controlled trials show that ePSMs can effectively manage treatment-related adverse effects. However, an understanding of optimal approaches for implementing these systems into routine cancer care is limited. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators prior to the implementation of an ePSM to inform the selection of implementation strategies. METHODS: A qualitative study using virtual focus groups and individual interviews was conducted with cancer survivors, oncology healthcare providers, and clinic leadership across four cancer centres in Canada. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided the interviews and analysis of barriers and facilitators based on five domains (intervention characteristics, individual characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, and process). RESULTS: We conducted 13 focus groups and nine individual interviews with 13 patient participants and 56 clinic staff. Of the 39 CFIR constructs, 18 were identified as relevant determinants to the implementation. The adaptability, relative advantage, and complexity of an ePSM emerged as key intervention-level factors that could influence implementation. Knowledge of the system was important at the individual level. Within the inner setting, major determinants were the potential fit of an ePSM with clinical workflows (compatibility) and the resources that could be dedicated to the implementation effort (readiness for implementation). In the outer setting, meeting the needs of patients and the availability of rehabilitation supports were key determinants. Engaging various stakeholders was critical at the process level. CONCLUSIONS: Improving the implementation of ePSMs in routine cancer care has the potential to facilitate early identification and management of treatment-related adverse effects, thereby improving quality of life. This study provides insight into important factors that may influence the implementation of an ePSM, which can be used to select appropriate implementation strategies to address these factors.

Perspectives of key informants before and after implementing UPSIDES peer support in mental health services: qualitative findings from an international multi-site study.

BACKGROUND: Peer support is an essential part of recovery-oriented care worldwide. Contextual factors have an impact on the implementation of peer support work. However, research has paid little attention to similarities and differences of implementation factors in settings varying by income-level and cultural values. The aim of this study is to assess the factors influencing the implementation of a peer support intervention across study sites in low-, middle- and high-income countries in line with the Consolidation Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). METHOD: 6 focus groups with a total of 54 key informants with relevant contextual (organisational) knowledge regarding implementation facilitators and barriers were conducted at six study sites Ulm and Hamburg (Germany), Butabika (Uganda), Dar es Salaam (Tanzania), Be'er Sheva (Israel), and Pune (India) before and 1.5 years after the start of UPSIDES peer support. Transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Across study sites key informants reported benefits of peer support for service users and peer support workers as implementation facilitators. At study sites with lower resources, reduced workload for mental health workers and improved access to mental health services through peer support were perceived as implementation facilitators (CFIR Domain 1: Intervention characteristics). The degree of engagement of mental health workers (CFIR Domain 3: Inner Setting/Domain 4: Individuals involved) varied across study sites and was seen either as a barrier (low engagement) or a facilitator (high engagement). Across study sites, adequate training of peer support workers (CFIR Domain 5: Implementation process) was seen as animplementation facilitator, while COVID-19 as well as low resource availability were reported as implementation barriers (CFIR Domain 2: Outer setting). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of considering contextual factors when implementing peer support, including previous experience and perceived benefits. Particular attention should be given to organisational benefits such as workload reduction and the allocation of sufficient resources as key drivers in LMICs. In HICs, the potential of organisational benefits for successful implementation should be further investigated and promoted.

Implementing digital sexual and reproductive health care services in youth clinics: a qualitative study on perceived barriers and facilitators among midwives in Stockholm, Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Digital health care services have the potential to improve access to sexual and reproductive health care for youth but require substantial implementation efforts to translate into individual and public health gains. Health care providers are influential both regarding implementation and utilization of the services, and hence, their perceptions of digital health care services and the implementation process are essential to identify and address. The aim of this study was to explore midwives' perception of digital sexual and reproductive health care services for youth, and to identify perceived barriers and facilitators of the implementation of digital health care provision in youth clinics. METHODS: We performed semi-structured interviews with midwives (n = 16) working at youth clinics providing both on-site and digital sexual and reproductive health care services to youth in Stockholm, Sweden. Interview data were analyzed using a content analysis approach guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: Midwives acknowledged that the implementation of digital health care improved the overall access and timeliness of the services at youth clinics. The ability to accommodate the needs of youth regarding their preferred meeting environment (digital or on-site) and easy access to follow-up consultations were identified as benefits of digital health care. Challenges to provide digital health care included communication barriers, privacy and confidentiality concerns, time constraints, inability to offer digital appointments for social counselling, and midwives' preference for in person consultations. Experiencing organizational support during the implementation was appreciated but varied between the respondents. CONCLUSION: Digital sexual and reproductive health care services could increase access and are valuable complements to on-site services in youth clinics. Sufficient training for midwives and organizational support are crucial to ensure high quality health care. Privacy and safety concerns for the youth might aggravate implementation of digital health care. Future research could focus on equitable access and youth' perceptions of digital health care services for sexual and reproductive health.

Using the consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to integrate innovation recipients' perspectives into the implementation of a digital version of the spinal cord injury health maintenance tool: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in managing secondary health complications after spinal cord injury (SCI), challenges remain in developing targeted community health strategies. In response, the SCI Health Maintenance Tool (SCI-HMT) was developed between 2018 and 2023 in NSW, Australia to support people with SCI and their general practitioners (GPs) to promote better community self-management. Successful implementation of innovations such as the SCI-HMT are determined by a range of contextual factors, including the perspectives of the innovation recipients for whom the innovation is intended to benefit, who are rarely included in the implementation process. During the digitizing of the booklet version of the SCI-HMT into a website and App, we used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as a tool to guide collection and analysis of qualitative data from a range of innovation recipients to promote equity and to inform actionable findings designed to improve the implementation of the SCI-HMT. METHODS: Data from twenty-three innovation recipients in the development phase of the SCI-HMT were coded to the five CFIR domains to inform a semi-structured interview guide. This interview guide was used to prospectively explore the barriers and facilitators to planned implementation of the digital SCI-HMT with six health professionals and four people with SCI. A team including researchers and innovation recipients then interpreted these data to produce a reflective statement matched to each domain. Each reflective statement prefaced an actionable finding, defined as alterations that can be made to a program to improve its adoption into practice. RESULTS: Five reflective statements synthesizing all participant data and linked to an actionable finding to improve the implementation plan were created. Using the CFIR to guide our research emphasized how partnership is the key theme connecting all implementation facilitators, for example ensuring that the tone, scope, content and presentation of the SCI-HMT balanced the needs of innovation recipients alongside the provision of evidence-based clinical information. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding recipient perspectives is an essential contextual factor to consider when developing implementation strategies for healthcare innovations. The revised CFIR provided an effective, systematic method to understand, integrate and value recipient perspectives in the development of an implementation strategy for the SCI-HMT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

Challenges to the implementation of a multi-level intervention to reduce mistreatment of women during childbirth in Iran: a qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

BACKGROUND: Mistreatment during childbirth is a growing concern worldwide, especially in developing countries, such as Iran. In response, we launched a comprehensive implementation research (IR) project to reduce mistreatment during childbirth and enhance positive birth experiences in birth facilities. This study identified the challenges of implementing a multi-level intervention to reduce mistreatment of women during childbirth using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). METHODS: An exploratory qualitative study, involving 30 in-depth interviews, was conducted between July 2022 and February 2023. Participants included a purposive sample of key stakeholders at different levels of the health system (macro: Ministry of Health and Medical Education; meso: universities of medical sciences and health services; and micro: hospitals) with sufficient knowledge, direct experience, and/or collaboration in the implementation of the studied interventions. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded using directed qualitative content analysis (CFIR constructs) in MAXQDA 18. RESULTS: The identified challenges were: (1) individual level (childbirth preparation classes: e.g., adaptability, design quality and packaging, cosmopolitanism; presence of birth companions: e.g., patient needs and resources, structural characteristics, culture); (2) healthcare provider level (integrating respectful maternity care into in-service training: e.g., relative priority, access to knowledge and information, reflecting and evaluating); (3) hospital level (evaluating the performance of maternity healthcare providers: e.g., executing, external policies and incentives); and (4) national health system level (implementation of pain relief during childbirth guidelines: e.g., networks and communications, patient needs and resources, executing, reflecting and evaluating). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a clear understanding of the challenges of implementing a multi-level intervention to reduce mistreatment of women during childbirth and highlights potential implications for policy makers and practitioners of maternal health programs. We encourage them to take the lessons learned from this study and revise their current programs and policies regarding the quality of maternity care by focusing on the identified challenges.

Evidence suggests that mistreatment during childbirth is a growing concern worldwide, especially in developing countries, such as Iran. In this qualitative study, through 30 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders at different levels of the health system (macro: Ministry of Health and Medical Education; meso: universities of medical sciences and health services; and micro: hospitals), we identified the challenges of implementing a multi-level intervention to reduce mistreatment of women during childbirth using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The data were analyzed using directed content analysis and a deductive approach in MAXQDA 18 software. The identified challenges were: (1) individual level (childbirth preparation classes: e.g., adaptability; presence of birth companions: e.g., patient needs and resources); (2) healthcare provider level (integrating respectful maternity care into in-service training: e.g., relative priority); (3) hospital level (evaluating the performance of maternity healthcare providers: e.g., executing, external policies and incentives); and (4) national health system level (implementation of pain relief childbirth guidelines: e.g., networks and communications). This study provides a clear understanding of the challenges of implementing a multi-level intervention to reduce mistreatment of women during childbirth; and highlights potential implications for policy makers and practitioners of maternal health programs.