What matters to program partners when implementing a community-based exercise program for people post-stroke? A theory-based qualitative study and cost analysis.

Background: Community-based exercise programs integrating a healthcare-community partnership (CBEP-HCP) can facilitate lifelong exercise participation for people post-stroke. Understanding the process of implementation from multiple perspectives can inform strategies to promote program sustainability. Purpose: To explore stakeholders' experiences with undertaking first-time implementation of a group, task-oriented CBEP-HCP for people post-stroke and describe associated personnel and travel costs. Methods: We conducted a descriptive qualitative study within a pilot randomized controlled trial. In three cities, trained fitness instructors delivered a 12-week CBEP-HCP targeting balance and mobility limitations to people post-stroke at a recreation centre with support from a healthcare partner. Healthcare and recreation managers and personnel at each site participated in semi-structured interviews or focus groups by telephone post-intervention. Interviews and data analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research and Theoretical Domains Framework, for managers and program providers, respectively. We estimated personnel and travel costs associated with implementing the program. Results: Twenty individuals from three sites (4 recreation and 3 healthcare managers, 7 fitness instructors, 3 healthcare partners, and 3 volunteers) participated. We identified two themes related to the decision to partner and implement the program: (1) Program quality and packaging, and cost-benefit comparisons influenced managers' decisions to partner and implement the CBEP-HCP, and (2) Previous experiences and beliefs about program benefits influenced staff decisions to become instructors. We identified two additional themes related to experiences with training and program delivery: (1) Program staff with previous experience and training faced initial role-based challenges that resolved with program delivery, and (2) Organizational capacity to manage program resource requirements influenced managers' decisions to continue the program. Participants identified recommendations related to partnership formation, staff/volunteer selection, training, and delivery of program activities. Costs (in CAD) for first-time program implementation were: healthcare partner ($680); fitness coordinators and instructors ($3,153); and participant transportation (personal vehicle: $283; public transit: $110). Conclusion: During first-time implementation of a CBEP-HCP, healthcare and hospital managers focused on cost, resource requirements, and the added-value of the program, while instructors and healthcare partners focused on their preparedness for the role and their ability to manage individuals with balance and mobility limitations. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03122626. Registered April 17, 2017-Retrospectively registered, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03122626.

Community-based exercise programs incorporating healthcare-community partnerships to improve function post-stroke: feasibility of a 2-group randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the potential for community-based exercise programs supported through healthcare-community partnerships (CBEP-HCPs) to improve function post-stroke, insufficient trial evidence limits widespread program implementation and funding. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of a CBEP-HCP compared to a waitlist control group to improve everyday function among people post-stroke. METHODS: We conducted a 3-site, pilot randomized trial with blinded follow-up evaluations at 3, 6, and 10 months. Community-dwelling adults able to walk 10 m were stratified by site and gait speed and randomized (1:1) to a CBEP-HCP or waitlist control group. The CBEP-HCP involved a 1-h, group exercise class, with repetitive and progressive practice of functional balance and mobility tasks, twice a week for 12 weeks. We offered the exercise program to the waitlist group at 10 months. We interviewed 13 participants and 9 caregivers post-intervention and triangulated quantitative and qualitative results. Study outcomes included feasibility of recruitment, interventions, retention, and data collection, and potential effect on everyday function. RESULTS: Thirty-three people with stroke were randomized to the intervention (n = 16) or waitlist group (n = 17). We recruited 1-2 participants/month at each site. Participants preferred being recruited by a familiar healthcare professional. Participants described a 10- or 12-month wait in the control group as too long. The exercise program was implemented per protocol across sites. Five participants (31%) in the intervention group attended fewer than 50% of classes for health reasons. In the intervention and waitlist group, retention was 88% and 82%, respectively, and attendance at 10-month evaluations was 63% and 71%, respectively. Participants described inclement weather, availability of transportation, and long commutes as barriers to attending exercise classes and evaluations. Among participants in the CBEP-HCP who attended ≥ 50% of classes, quantitative and qualitative results suggested an immediate effect of the intervention on balance, balance self-efficacy, lower limb strength, everyday function, and overall health. CONCLUSION: The CBEP-HCP appears feasible and potentially beneficial. Findings will inform protocol revisions to optimize recruitment, and program and evaluation attendance in a future trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03122626 . Registered April 21, 2017 - retrospectively registered.

Stakeholder Perspectives of Attributes and Features of Context Relevant to Knowledge Translation in Health Settings: A Multi-Country Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Context is recognized as important to successful knowledge translation (KT) in health settings. What is meant by context, however, is poorly understood. The purpose of the current study was to elicit tacit knowledge about what is perceived to constitute context by conducting interviews with a variety of health system stakeholders internationally so as to compile a comprehensive list of contextual attributes and their features relevant to KT in healthcare. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative study design was used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with health system stakeholders (change agents/KT specialists and KT researchers) in four countries: Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Interview transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic content analysis in four steps: (1) selection of utterances describing context, (2) coding of features of context, (3) categorizing of features into attributes of context, (4) comparison of attributes and features by: country, KT experience, and role. RESULTS: A total of 39 interviews were conducted. We identified 66 unique features of context, categorized into 16 attributes. One attribute, Facility Characteristics, was not represented in previously published KT frameworks. We found instances of all 16 attributes in the interviews irrespective of country, level of experience with KT, and primary role (change agent/KT specialist vs. KT researcher), revealing robustness and transferability of the attributes identified. We also identified 30 new context features (across 13 of the 16 attributes). CONCLUSION: The findings from this study represent an important advancement in the KT field; we provide much needed conceptual clarity in context, which is essential to the development of common assessment tools to measure context to determine which context attributes and features are more or less important in different contexts for improving KT success.

Understanding context: A concept analysis.

AIMS: To conduct a concept analysis of clinical practice contexts (work environments) in health care. BACKGROUND: Context is increasingly recognized as important to the development, delivery, and understanding of implementation strategies; however, conceptual clarity about what comprises context is lacking. DESIGN: Modified Walker and Avant concept analysis comprised of five steps: (1) concept selection; (2) determination of aims; (3) identification of uses of context; (4) determination of its defining attributes; and (5) definition of its empirical referents. METHODS: A wide range of databases were systematically searched from inception to August 2014. Empirical articles were included if a definition and/or attributes of context were reported. Theoretical articles were included if they reported a model, theory, or framework of context or where context was a component. Double independent screening and data extraction were conducted. Analysis was iterative, involving organizing and reorganizing until a framework of domains, attributes. and features of context emerged. RESULT: We identified 15,972 references, of which 70 satisfied our inclusion criteria. In total, 201 unique features of context were identified, of these 89 were shared (reported in two or more studies). The 89 shared features were grouped into 21 attributes of context which were further categorized into six domains of context. CONCLUSION: This study resulted in a framework of domains, attributes and features of context. These attributes and features, if assessed and used to tailor implementation activities, hold promise for improved research implementation in clinical practice.

Attributes of context relevant to healthcare professionals' use of research evidence in clinical practice: a multi-study analysis.

BACKGROUND: To increase the likelihood of successful implementation of evidence-based practices, researchers, knowledge users, and healthcare professionals must consider aspects of context that promote and hinder implementation in their setting. The purpose of the current study was to identify contextual attributes and their features relevant to implementation by healthcare professionals and compare and contrast these attributes and features across different clinical settings and healthcare professional roles. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of 145 semi-structured interviews comprising 11 studies (10 from Canada and one from Australia) investigating healthcare professionals' perceived barriers and enablers to their use of research evidence in clinical practice. The data was collected using semi-structured interview guides informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework across different healthcare professional roles, settings, and practices. We analyzed these data inductively, using constant comparative analysis, to identify attributes of context and their features reported in the interviews. We compared these data by (1) setting (primary care, hospital-medical/surgical, hospital-emergency room, hospital-critical care) and (2) professional role (physicians and residents, nurses and organ donor coordinators). RESULTS: We identified 62 unique features of context, which we categorized under 14 broader attributes of context. The 14 attributes were resource access, work structure, patient characteristics, professional role, culture, facility characteristics, system features, healthcare professional characteristics, financial, collaboration, leadership, evaluation, regulatory or legislative standards, and societal influences. We found instances of the majority (n = 12, 86%) of attributes of context across multiple (n = 6 or more) clinical behaviors. We also found little variation in the 14 attributes of context by setting (primary care and hospitals) and professional role (physicians and residents, and nurses and organ donor coordinators). CONCLUSIONS: There was considerable consistency in the 14 attributes identified irrespective of the clinical behavior, setting, or professional role, supporting broad utility of the attributes of context identified in this study. There was more variation in the finer-grained features of these attributes with the most substantial variation being by setting.