Investigation of factors influencing the implementation of two shared decision-making interventions in contraceptive care: a qualitative interview study among clinical and administrative staff.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on how to implement shared decision-making (SDM) interventions in routine practice. We conducted a qualitative study, embedded within a 2 × 2 factorial cluster randomized controlled trial, to assess the acceptability and feasibility of two interventions for facilitating SDM about contraceptive methods in primary care and family planning clinics. The two SDM interventions comprised a patient-targeted intervention (video and prompt card) and a provider-targeted intervention (encounter decision aids and training). METHODS: Participants were clinical and administrative staff aged 18 years or older who worked in one of the 12 clinics in the intervention arm, had email access, and consented to being audio-recorded. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted upon completion of the trial. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data collection and thematic analysis were informed by the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework, which are relevant to the successful implementation of provider behaviour change interventions. RESULTS: Interviews (n = 29) indicated that the interventions were not systematically implemented in the majority of clinics. Participants felt the interventions were aligned with their role and they had confidence in their skills to use the decision aids. However, the novelty of the interventions, especially a need to modify workflows and change behavior to use them with patients, were implementation challenges. The interventions were not deeply embedded in clinic routines and their use was threatened by lack of understanding of their purpose and effect, and staff absence or turnover. Participants from clinics that had an enthusiastic study champion or team-based organizational culture found these social supports had a positive role in implementing the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in capabilities and motivation among clinical and administrative staff, coupled with inconsistent use of the interventions in routine workflow contributed to suboptimal implementation of the interventions. Future trials may benefit by using implementation strategies that embed SDM in the organizational culture of clinical settings.

Right For Me: protocol for a cluster randomised trial of two interventions for facilitating shared decision-making about contraceptive methods.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the observed and theoretical advantages of shared decision-making in a range of clinical contexts, including contraceptive care, there remains a paucity of evidence on how to facilitate its adoption. This paper describes the protocol for a study to assess the comparative effectiveness of patient-targeted and provider-targeted interventions for facilitating shared decision-making about contraceptive methods. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a 2×2 factorial cluster randomised controlled trial with four arms: (1) video+prompt card, (2) decision aids+training, (3) video+prompt card and decision aids+training and (4) usual care. The clusters will be clinics in USA that deliver contraceptive care. The participants will be people who have completed a healthcare visit at a participating clinic, were assigned female sex at birth, are aged 15-49 years, are able to read and write English or Spanish and have not previously participated in the study. The primary outcome will be shared decision-making about contraceptive methods. Secondary outcomes will be the occurrence of a conversation about contraception in the healthcare visit, satisfaction with the conversation about contraception, intended contraceptive method(s), intention to use a highly effective method, values concordance of the intended method(s), decision regret, contraceptive method(s) used, use of a highly effective method, use of the intended method(s), adherence, satisfaction with the method(s) used, unintended pregnancy and unwelcome pregnancy. We will collect study data via longitudinal patient surveys administered immediately after the healthcare visit, four weeks later and six months later. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We will disseminate results via presentations at scientific and professional conferences, papers published in peer-reviewed, open-access journals and scientific and lay reports. We will also make an anonymised copy of the final participant-level dataset available to others for research purposes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02759939.

Reaching Latinas with Our Bodies, Ourselves and the Guía de Capacitación para Promotoras de Salud: health education for social change.

As the cultural and linguistic diversity of the United States continues to grow and population shifts transform the communities where we live and work, health care providers continue to face challenges to deliver health services in demographically redefined terrains. This report describes the development of a Spanish-language training guide for community health workers (Guía de Capacitación para Promotoras de Salud) based on the book Nuestros Cuerpos, Nuestras Vidas (NCNV), the Spanish-language translation and cultural adaptation of the classic women's health book Our Bodies, Ourselves. The guide aims to 1) provide a tool for addressing the health education needs of immigrant Latinas and 2) facilitate the use of the book NCNV as a health education tool in Latino communities. Thirty telephone interviews with individuals working in agencies and organizations serving Latinos and 2 focus groups with Latinas were conducted to select the topics included in the training guide, all of which were drawn directly from NCNV. The guide contains 11 modules organized into 6 workshops. The modules address 11 topics related to women's health, ranging from sexuality and pregnancy to domestic violence and mental health. An ecological framework is used to deliver the health information. The materials acknowledge the roles of history, environment, culture, economic conditions, migration history, and politics as key determinants of health and illness. The workshops are designed to train community health workers on the women's health topics contained in the guide and to equip them for the delivery of health education among immigrant Latinas.

Encouraging women to consider a less medicalized approach to childbirth without turning them off: challenges to producing Our Bodies, Ourselves: Pregnancy and Birth.

Within the United States, women routinely confront negative and distorted ideas about birth, and highly medicalized births are the norm. The writers and editors of Our Bodies, Ourselves: Pregnancy and Birth discuss their efforts to write a book that provides women with accessible, evidence-based information; examines the social, economic, and political factors that shape and constrain childbirth choices; and inspires women to work toward ensuring that all women have access to the full range of safe and satisfying birthing options.

Marginalization of midwives in the United States: new responses to an old story.

This column addresses issues raised by an intensive study of the circumstances and actions that resulted in the closure of two long-standing, successful nurse-midwifery services in a large United States city in 2003. Dr. Steffie Goodman of the School of Nursing, University of Colorado Health Science Center in Denver, USA, conducted 52 in-depth interviews with midwives, nurses, administrators, childbirth educators, policymakers, and physicians in an effort to understand how and why these two services were closed and what their closures revealed about the general underutilization of midwives in contemporary U.S. health care. Goodman concluded that economics, power, and authority converge in a way that allows persons in positions of institutional power and authority to make self-serving decisions that diminish access to midwifery services and that they can do so without any public accountability for their actions.

Hormone replacement therapy, cancer, controversies, and women's health: historical, epidemiological, biological, clinical, and advocacy perspectives.

Routine acceptance of use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was shattered in 2002 when results of the largest HRT randomised clinical trial, the women's health initiative, indicated that long term use of oestrogen plus progestin HRT not only was associated with increased risk of cancer but, contrary to expectations, did not decrease, and may have increased, risk of cardiovascular disease. In June 2004 a group of historians, epidemiologists, biologists, clinicians, and women's health advocates met to discuss the scientific and social context of and response to these findings. It was found that understanding the evolving and contending knowledge on hormones and health requires: (1) considering its societal context, including the impact of the pharmaceutical industry, the biomedical emphasis on individualised risk and preventive medicine, and the gendering of hormones; and (2) asking why, for four decades, since the mid-1960s, were millions of women prescribed powerful pharmacological agents already demonstrated, three decades earlier, to be carcinogenic? Answering this question requires engaging with core issues of accountability, complexity, fear of mortality, and the conduct of socially responsible science.