Oral and maxillofacial surgeons' views on the adoption of additive manufacturing: findings from a nationwide survey.

OBJECTIVES: Hospitals in many European countries have implemented Additive Manufacturing (AM) technology for multiple Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMFS) applications. Although the technology is widely implemented, surgeons also play a crucial role in whether a hospital will adopt the technology for surgical procedures. The study has two objectives: (1) to investigate how hospital type (university or non-university hospital) influences surgeons' views on AM, and (2) to explore how previous experience with AM (AM experience or not) influences surgeons' views on AM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online questionnaire to capture surgeons' views was designed, consisting of 11 Likert scale questions formulated according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The questionnaire was sent to OMF surgeons through the channel provided by the Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in Sweden. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test to identify significant differences among OMF surgeons in terms of organizational form (i.e., university hospital or non-university hospital) and experience of AM (i.e., AM experience or no-experience). RESULTS: In total, 31 OMF surgeons responded to the survey. Views of surgeons from universities and non-universities, as well as between surgeons with experience and no-experience, did not show significant differences in the 11 questions captured across five CFIR domains. However, the "individual characteristics" domain in CFIR, consisting of three questions, did show significant differences between surgeons' experience with AM and no-experience (P-values: P = 0.01, P = 0.01, and P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons, whether affiliated with university hospitals or non-university hospitals and regardless of their prior experience with AM, generally exhibit a favorable attitude towards AM. However, there were significant differences in terms of individual characteristics between those who had prior experience with AM and those who did not. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This investigation facilitates the implementation of AM in OMFS by reporting on the views of OMF surgeons on AM.

Adaptation of a guided low-intensity behavioral activation intervention for people with dementia in Sweden: a qualitative study exploring the needs and preferences of key stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Despite depression being prevalent in people with dementia, contributing to negative health outcomes and placing increased burden on individuals and family members, access to psychological interventions is limited. A potential solution is guided low-intensity behavioral activation, supported by informal caregivers and guided by healthcare professionals. However, it is necessary to adapt interventions to meet the needs and preferences of key stakeholders to enhance acceptability and relevance. Study objectives were to: (1) explore needs and preferences concerning the content and delivery model of the guided low-intensity behavioral activation intervention; and (2) adapt the intervention to ensure cultural appropriateness, relevancy, and acceptability to people with dementia and their caregivers in Sweden. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with key stakeholders, including healthcare professionals (n = 18), community stakeholders (n = 7), people with dementia (n = 8), and informal caregivers (n = 19). A draft of the written low-intensity behavioral activation intervention and a description of the proposed intervention delivery model were provided to participants. Open-ended questions explored the perceived relevance of the intervention, alongside needs and preferences concerning content and delivery. A manifest content analysis approach was adopted. RESULTS: Content analysis resulted in three categories: Content, Delivery procedures, and Illness trajectory. Results highlighted a need to consider the intervention Content via increased cultural adaptation to the Swedish context, and increasing the inclusiveness of intervention content. Delivery procedures were identified as needing to be flexible given the unpredictable nature of caring for people with dementia, with the provision of additional guidance to informal caregivers supporting the intervention. Illness trajectory was viewed as essential to consider, with the intervention regarded as suitable for those early in the dementia trajectory, alongside a need to reduce workbook text to minimize burden given dementia symptomology. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention and proposed delivery model were generally well received by all stakeholders. We were able to identify key adaptations to enhance cultural appropriateness, relevancy, and acceptability for a currently neglected population. Results will inform a feasibility study to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and study procedures to inform the design of a future superiority randomized controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION/PROTOCOL: Not applicable.

Adoption of additive manufacturing in oral and maxillofacial surgery among university and non-university hospitals in Sweden: findings from a nationwide survey.

PURPOSE: Additive manufacturing (AM) is an innovative printing technology that can manufacture 3-dimensional solid objects by adding layers of material from model data. AM in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) provides several clinical applications such as surgical guides and implants. However, the adoption of AM in OMFS is not well covered. The purpose was to study the adoption of AM in OMFS in university and non-university hospitals in Sweden. Three research questions were addressed: What is the degree of using AM solutions in university and non-university hospitals?; What are AM solutions used?; How are the AM solutions accessed (production mode) in university hospitals and non-university hospitals? METHODS: A survey was distributed to OMF surgeons in Sweden. The questionnaire consisted of 16 questions. Data were analyzed through descriptive and content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 14 university and non-university hospitals were captured. All 14 hospitals have adopted AM technology and 11 of the hospitals adopted AM in OMFS. Orthognathic and trauma surgery are two major types of surgery that involve AM technology where material extrusion and vat polymerization are the two most used AM technologies in OMFS. The primary application of AM was in medical models and guides. CONCLUSION: Majority of Swedish university hospitals and non-university hospitals have adopted AM in OMFS. The type of hospital (university or non-university hospital) has no impact on AM adoption. AM in OMFS in Sweden can be perceived to be a mature clinical application.

Effectiveness, acceptability, and completeness and quality of intervention reporting of psychological interventions for people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Mental health difficulties such as anxiety and depression have negative impacts on psychological well-being and are common in people with dementia and mild cognitive impairment. However, access to psychological treatments is limited. This mixed-method systematic review will: (1) examine the effectiveness of psychological interventions to improve mental health and psychological well-being in people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment; (2) examine the effectiveness of these psychological interventions to improve mental health and psychological well-being in informal caregivers; (3) examine potential clinical and methodological moderators associated with effectiveness; (4) explore factors associated with the acceptability of psychological interventions from the perspective of key stakeholders; and (5) examine the completeness and quality of intervention reporting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Electronic databases (ASSIA, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO and MEDLINE) will be systematically searched and supplemented with expert contact, reference and citation checking, and grey literature searches. If possible, we will conduct a meta-analysis to examine the overall effectiveness of psychological interventions to improve mental health and psychological well-being in people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment and their informal caregivers; and examine potential clinical and methodological moderators associated with effectiveness. We will conduct a deductive framework synthesis, informed by the theoretical framework of acceptability, to explore factors associated with the acceptability of psychological interventions from the perspective of key stakeholders. In accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidance, we will adopt a convergent segregated approach to data synthesis and integration of quantitative and qualitative findings. We will examine the completeness and quality of intervention reporting according to the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist and guide. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No primary data will be collected, and therefore, ethical approval is not required. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, academic conferences, and plain language summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023400514.

Healthcare and community stakeholders' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to implementing a behavioral activation intervention for people with dementia and depression: a qualitative study using Normalization Process Theory.

BACKGROUND: Depression is commonly experienced by people with dementia, and associated with lower quality of life and functional decline. However, access to evidence-based psychological interventions for people with dementia and depression is limited. One potential solution is guided low-intensity behavioral activation. Following the new Medical Research Council Framework, considering factors such as potential barriers and facilitators to implementation is recommended during the development of new interventions. Aims of this study were to: (1) develop an understanding of existing healthcare and community support in the Swedish context for people with dementia and their informal caregivers; and (2) identify barriers and facilitators to intervention uptake informed by Normalization Process Theory. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were held with healthcare (n = 18) and community (n = 7) stakeholders working with people with dementia and/or informal caregivers. Interview questions were informed by Normalization Process Theory. Data was analysed utilizing a two-step deductive analysis approach using the Normalization Process Theory coding manual, with inductive categories applied to data related to the main mechanisms of the theory, but not captured by its sub-constructs. RESULTS: Twelve deductive and three inductive categories related to three Normalization Process Theory primary mechanisms (Coherence, Cognitive Participation, and Collective Action) were identified. Identified barriers to intervention uptake included: (1) additional burden for informal caregivers; (2) lack of appropriate workforce to provide guidance; (3) lack of time and financial resources; (4) people with dementia not recognising their diagnosis of dementia and/or a need for support; and (5) stigma. Identified facilitators to intervention uptake included: (1) intervention has potential to fill a large psychological treatment gap in Sweden; (2) objectives and potential benefits understood and agreed by most stakeholders; and (3) some healthcare professionals recognized their potential role in providing intervention guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Several barriers and facilitators for future implementation, specific to the intervention, individuals and families, as well as professionals, were identified during intervention development. Barriers were mapped into evidence-based implementation strategies, which will be adopted to overcome identified barriers. A feasibility study further examining implementation potential, acceptability and feasibility, alongside clinical, methodological, and procedural uncertainties associated with the intervention will be conducted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Identifying and Addressing Barriers and Facilitators for the Implementation of Internet of Things in Distributed Care: Protocol for a Case Study.

BACKGROUND:  The internet of things (IoT) is recognized as a valuable approach to supporting health care to achieve quality and person-centered care. This study aims to identify the facilitators and barriers associated with implementing IoT solutions in health care within a Scandinavian context. It addresses the pressing need to adapt health care systems to the demographic changes occurring in Scandinavia. The vision of "Vision eHealth 2025," a long-term strategic direction for digitalization in Sweden, serves as the background for this project. The implementation of IoT solutions is a crucial aspect of achieving the vision's goal of making Sweden a global leader in using digitalization and eHealth opportunities by 2025. IoT is recognized as a valuable approach to supporting health care to achieve quality and person-centered care. Previous research has shown that there is a gap in our understanding of social and organizational challenges related to IoT and that the implementation and introduction of new technology in health care is often problematic. OBJECTIVE:  In this study, we will identify facilitating and hindering factors for the implementation of IoT solutions in social and health care. METHODS:  We will use an explorative design with a case study approach. The data collection will comprise questionnaires and qualitative interviews. Also, a literature review will be conducted at the start of the project. Thus, quantitative and qualitative data will be collected concurrently and integrated into a convergent mixed methods approach. RESULTS:  As of June 2023, data for the review and 22 interviews with the stakeholders have been performed. The co-design with stakeholders will be performed in the fall of 2023. CONCLUSIONS:  This study represents a unique and innovative opportunity to gain new knowledge relevant and useful for future implementation of new technology at health care organizations so they can continue to offer high-quality, person-centered care. The outcomes of this research will contribute to a better understanding of the conditions necessary to implement and fully use the potential of IoT solutions. By developing cocreated implementation strategies, the study seeks to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Ultimately, this project aims to facilitate the adoption of IoT solutions in health care for promoting improved patient care and using technology to meet the evolving needs of health care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/44562.

Barriers to and Facilitators of the Implementation of Digital Mental Health Interventions as Perceived by Primary Care Decision Makers: Content Analysis of Structured Open-Ended Survey Data.

BACKGROUND: Digital mental health represents a way to increase access to evidence-based psychological support. However, the implementation of digital mental health in routine health care practice is limited, with few studies focusing on implementation. Accordingly, there is a need to better understand the barriers to and facilitators of implementing digital mental health. Existing studies have mainly focused on the viewpoints of patients and health professionals. Currently, there are few studies about barriers and facilitators from the perspective of primary care decision makers, that is, the persons responsible for deciding whether a given digital mental health intervention should be implemented in a primary care organization. OBJECTIVE: The objectives were to identify and describe barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of digital mental health as perceived by primary care decision makers, evaluate the relative importance of different barriers and facilitators, and compare barriers and facilitators reported by primary care decision makers who have versus have not implemented digital mental health interventions. METHODS: A web-based self-report survey was conducted with primary care decision makers responsible for the implementation of digital mental health in primary care organizations in Sweden. Answers to 2 open-ended questions about barriers and facilitators were analyzed through summative and deductive content analysis. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 284 primary care decision makers-59 (20.8%) decision makers representing implementers (ie, organizations that offered digital mental health interventions) and 225 (79.2%) respondents representing nonimplementers (ie, organizations that did not offer digital mental health interventions). Overall, 90% (53/59) of the implementers and 98.7% (222/225) of the nonimplementers identified barriers, and 97% (57/59) of the implementers and 93.3% (210/225) of the nonimplementers identified facilitators. Altogether, 29 barriers and 20 facilitators of implementation were identified related to guidelines; patients; health professionals; incentives and resources; capacity for organizational change; and social, political, and legal factors. The most prevalent barriers were related to incentives and resources, whereas the most prevalent facilitators were related to the capacity for organizational change. CONCLUSIONS: A number of barriers and facilitators were identified that could influence the implementation of digital mental health from the perspective of primary care decision makers. Implementers and nonimplementers identified many common barriers and facilitators, but they differ in terms of certain barriers and facilitators. Common and differing barriers and facilitators identified by implementers and nonimplementers may be important to address when planning for the implementation of digital mental health interventions. For instance, financial incentives and disincentives (eg, increased costs) are the most frequently mentioned barrier and facilitator, respectively, by nonimplementers, but not by implementers. One way to facilitate implementation could be to provide more information to nonimplementers about the actual costs related to the implementation of digital mental health.

Adapting a guided low-intensity behavioural activation intervention for people with dementia and depression in the Swedish healthcare context (INVOLVERA): a study protocol using codesign and participatory action research.

INTRODUCTION: Dementia is a worldwide health concern with incident rates continuing to increase. While depression prevalence is high in people with dementia and psychological interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) are effective, access to psychological interventions remains limited. Reliance on traditional CBT for people with dementia and depression may present difficulties given it is a complex psychological approach, costly to deliver, and professional training time is lengthy. An alternative approach is behavioural activation (BA), a simpler psychological intervention for depression. The present study seeks to work with people with dementia, informal caregivers, community stakeholders, and healthcare professionals, to adapt a guided low-intensity BA intervention for people with dementia and depression, while maximising implementation potential within the Swedish healthcare context. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed methods study using codesign, principles from participatory action research (PAR) and normalisation process theory to facilitate the cultural relevance, appropriateness and implementation potential of the intervention. The study will consist of four iterative PAR phases, using focus groups with healthcare professionals and community stakeholders, and semi-structured interviews with people with dementia and informal caregivers. A content analysis approach will be adopted to analyse the transcribed focus groups and semi-structured interviews recordings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and data handled according to General Data Protection Regulation. Written informed consent will be obtained from all study participants. In accordance with the Swedish Health and Medical Services Act, capacity to consent will be examined by a member of the research team. Ethical approval has been obtained from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Dnr: 2020-05542 and Dnr: 2021-00925). Findings will be published in an open access peer-reviewed journal, presented at academic conferences, and disseminated among lay and healthcare professional audiences.

Views of Implementers and Nonimplementers of Internet-Administered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression and Anxiety: Survey of Primary Care Decision Makers in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Internet-administered cognitive behavioral therapy (ICBT) has been demonstrated to be an effective intervention for adults with depression and/or anxiety and is recommended in national guidelines for provision within Swedish primary care. However, the number and type of organizations that have implemented ICBT within primary care in Sweden is currently unclear. Further, there is a lack of knowledge concerning barriers and facilitators to ICBT implementation. OBJECTIVE: The two primary objectives were to identify and describe primary care organizations providing ICBT in Sweden and compare decision makers' (ie, directors of primary care organizations) views on barriers and facilitators to implementation of ICBT among ICBT implementers (ie, organizations that offered ICBT) and nonimplementers (ie, organizations that did not offer ICBT). METHODS: An online survey based on a checklist for identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation was developed and made accessible to decision makers from all primary care organizations in Sweden. The survey consisted of background questions (eg, provision of ICBT and number of persons working with ICBT) and barriers and facilitators relating to the following categories: users, therapists, ICBT programs, organizations, and wider society. RESULTS: The participation rate was 35.75% (404/1130). The majority (250/404, 61.8%) of participants were health care center directors and had backgrounds in nursing. Altogether, 89.8% (363/404) of the participating organizations provided CBT. A minority (83/404, 20.5%) of organizations offered ICBT. Most professionals delivering ICBT were psychologists (67/83, 80%) and social workers (31/83, 37%). The majority (61/83, 73%) of organizations had 1 to 2 persons delivering ICBT interventions. The number of patients treated with ICBT during the last 12 months was 1 to 10 in 65% (54/83) of the organizations, ranging between 1 and 400 treated patients across the whole sample. There were 9 significant (P<.05) differences out of 37 possible between implementers and nonimplementers. For example, more implementers (48/51, 94%) than nonimplementers (107/139, 76.9%) perceived few technical problems (P<.001), and more implementers (53/77, 68%) than nonimplementers (103/215, 47.9%) considered that their organization has resources to offer ICBT programs (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite research demonstrating the effectiveness of ICBT for depression and anxiety and national guidelines recommending its use, ICBT is implemented in few primary care organizations in Sweden. Several interesting differences between implementers and nonimplementers were identified, which may help inform interventions focusing on facilitating the implementation of ICBT.

An inductive exploration of the implementation knowledge of research funders.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare research funders may undertake various roles to facilitate implementation of research findings. Their ability to enact such roles depends on several factors, knowledge of implementation being one essential requirement. However, previous studies do not assess the type or level of knowledge about implementation that research funders possess. This paper therefore presents findings from a qualitative, inductive study of the implementation knowledge of research funders. Three aspects of this knowledge are explored, namely how research funders define implementation, their level of self-assessed implementation knowledge and the factors influencing their self-assessment of implementation knowledge. METHODS: Research funders (n = 18) were purposefully selected from a sample of research funding organisations in Sweden (n = 10). In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded and transcribed verbatim. An inductive method using a systematic coding procedure was employed to derive the findings. RESULTS: The research funders defined implementation as either an outcome or a process, with the majority believing that implementation of healthcare research results demands a process, although its complexity varied in the research funders' view. They perceived their own level of implementation knowledge as either limited or substantial, with a majority regarding it as limited. Clinical research experience, clinical experience and task relevance were singled out as the clearest factors affecting the self-assessment of their own implementation knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: This study, the first to focus on implementation knowledge of research funders, demonstrates that they are a category of policy-makers who may possess knowledge, based on their previous professional experience, that is comparable to some important findings from implementation research. Consequently, the findings not only pinpoint the relevance of professional experience, but also reveal a lack of awareness and knowledge of the results of implementation research among research funders in charge of healthcare research.

Research funders' roles and perceived responsibilities in relation to the implementation of clinical research results: a multiple case study of Swedish research funders.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of clinical research results is challenging, yet the responsibility for implementation is seldom addressed. The process from research to the use of clinical research results in health care can be facilitated by research funders. In this paper, we report the roles of ten Swedish research funders in relation to implementation and their views on responsibilities in implementation. FINDINGS: Ten cases were studied and compared using semi-structured interviews. In addition, websites and key documents were reviewed. Eight facilitative roles for research funders in relation to the implementation of clinical research results were identified. Three of them were common for several funders: "Advocacy work," "Monitoring implementation outcomes," and "Dissemination of knowledge." Moreover, the research funders identified six different actors responsible for implementation, five of which belonged to the healthcare setting. Collective and organizational responsibilities were the most common forms of responsibilities among the identified actors responsible for implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The roles commonly identified by the Swedish funders, "Advocacy work," "Monitoring implementation outcomes," and "Dissemination of knowledge," seem feasible facilitative roles in relation to the implementation of clinical research results. However, many actors identified as responsible for implementation together with the fact that collective and organizational responsibilities were the most common forms of responsibilities entail a risk of implementation becoming no one's responsibility.