Implementing Community-Created Self-Management Support Tools in Primary Care Practices: Multimethod Analysis From the INSTTEPP Study.

PURPOSE: With one-half of Americans projected to be living with at least one chronic condition before 2020, enhancing patient self-management support (SMS) may improve health-related behaviors and clinical outcomes. Routine SMS implementation in primary care settings is difficult. Little is known about the practice conditions required for successful implementation of SMS tools. METHODS: Four primary care practice-based research networks (PBRNs) recruited 16 practices to participate in a boot camp translation process to adapt patient-centered SMS tools. Boot camp translation sessions were held over a 2-month period with 2 patients, a clinician, and a care manager from each practice. Qualitative case comparison and qualitative comparative analysis were used to examine practice conditions needed to implement SMS tools. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided data collection and analysis. RESULTS: Four different practice conditions affected the implementation of new SMS tools: functional practice organization; system that enables innovation and change; presence of a visible, activated champion; and synergy and alignment of SMS changes with other work. Qualitative comparative analysis suggested that it was necessary to have an enabling system, a visible champion, and synergy for a practice to at least minimally implement the SMS tools. Sufficiency testing, however, failed to show robust consistency to satisfactorily explain conditions required to implement new SMS tools. CONCLUSIONS: To implement tailored self-management support tools relatively rapidly, the minimum necessary conditions include a system that enables innovation and change, presence of a visible champion, and alignment of SMS changes with other work; yet, these alone are insufficient to ensure successful implementation.

Tokenism in patient engagement.

Background: Patient engagement throughout research is a way to generate more relevant patient-important research questions, methods and results with the ultimate aim of facilitating translation of research into practice. Tokenism is defined as the practice of making perfunctory or symbolic efforts to engage communities or patients. Objective: We wanted to explore how tokenism might influence engaging patients in research to help researchers work towards more genuine engagement. Methods: The Community Clinician Advisory Group and Patient and Clinician Engagement program held a workshop at the 2015 North American Primary Care Research Group meeting titled 'How Do We Move beyond Tokenism in Patient Engagement?' Patients, clinicians and academic researchers contributed examples of genuine and token engagement characteristics based on personal experience and knowledge. Data were iteratively collated and categorized into domains and items. Results: Examples of genuine and token engagement were categorized into three domains: Methods/Structure of engagement, Intent and Relationship building. Members with experience in patient-engaged research projects felt that longitudinal engagement was a key element to effectively translating research into local community and practice. Conclusions: The group (i) highly valued genuine intent and relationship building as elements to combat tokenism; (ii) noted that early genuine attempts at engagement may superficially resemble tokenism as researchers build enduring and trusting relationships with patient/community partners and (iii) emphasized the importance of seeking and utilizing patient experiences throughout research. These observations may contribute to more formal methods to help researchers (and reviewers) evaluate where engagement processes sit along the 'genuine-token' continuum.

Clinician and Staff Perspectives on Participating in Practice-based Research (PBR): A Report from the Wisconsin Research and Education Network (WREN).

BACKGROUND: The success of practice-based research (PBR) depends on the willingness of clinicians and staff to incorporate meaningful and useful research protocols into already demanding clinic schedules. The impact of participation on those who implement multiple projects and how to address the issues that arise during this complex process remain incompletely described. This article reports a qualitative evaluation of the experiences of primary care clinicians and clinic staff who participated in multiple PBR projects with the Wisconsin Research and Education Network (WREN). Also included are their suggestions to researchers and clinicians for future collaborations. METHODS: For program evaluation purposes, WREN conducted 4 focus groups at its 2014 annual meeting. The main focus group question was, "How has participation in PBR affected you and your clinic?" A total of 27 project members from 13 clinics participated in 4 groups (physicians, nurses, managers, and other clinical staff). The 2-hour sessions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed to identify recurring themes. RESULTS: Five major focus group themes emerged: receptivity to research, outcomes as a result of participation, barriers to implementation, facilitators of success, and advice to researchers and colleagues. Focus group members find research valuable and enjoy participating in projects that are relevant to their practice, even though many barriers exist. They indicated that research participation produces clinical changes that they believe result in improved patient care. They offered ways to improve the research process, with particular emphasis on collaborative early planning, project development, and communication before, during, and after a project. CONCLUSIONS: Clinics that participate in WREN projects remain willing to risk potential work constraints because of immediate or impending benefits to their clinical practice and/or patient population. Including a broader array of clinic personnel in the communication processes, especially in the development of relevant research ideas and planning for clinic implementation and ongoing participation in research projects, would address many of the barriers identified in implementing PBR. The themes and supporting quotes identified in this evaluation of WREN projects may inform researchers planning to collaborate with primary care clinics and clinicians and staff considering participating in research endeavors.