Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of Injury Prevention Programs: A Qualitative Exploration and Model Development.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma mandated implementation of injury prevention programs as a requirement for Level I and II trauma center designation. Little is known about the factors that facilitate or create barriers to establishing evidence-based injury prevention program implementation. The purpose of this research is to generate hypotheses regarding processes used to implement injury prevention programs at trauma centers, identify the factors that facilitate and serve as a barrier to implementation, and develop a model reflecting these factors and relationships. METHODS: This is a qualitative study of injury prevention programs at trauma centers. Study participants were chosen from 24 sites representing trauma centers of different patient volumes, geographic regions, and settings in the United States. Subjects participated in phone interviews based on guides developed from pilot interviews with prevention coordinators. Transcribed interviews from eight subjects were analyzed using a system of member checking to code; analysis informed the identification of factors that influence the establishment of evidence-based injury prevention programs. RESULTS: Five themes emerged from the data analysis: external factors, internal organizational factors, program capacity, program selection, and program success. Analysis revealed that successful program implementation was related to supportive leaders and collaborative, interdepartmental relationships. Additional themes indicated that while organizations were motivated primarily by verification requirements (external factor), strong institutional leadership (internal factor) was lacking. Employee readiness (program capacity) was hindered by limited training opportunities, and programs were often chosen (selection) based on implementation ease rather than evidence base or local data. CONCLUSIONS: Data analysis reveals five emerging themes of program implementation; using these data, we suggest an initial model of barriers and facilitators for implementing evidence-based injury prevention programs that could serve as the springboard for additional research involving a larger representative sample.

A Tobacco-Free Medical Campus Policy is Associated With Decreased Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Increased Satisfaction Among Military Medical Employees: Results of a Mixed-Methods Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco control is an ongoing concern for the U.S. Army. Although tobacco use is currently prohibited within all military hospitals and clinics, known as military treatment facilities (MTFs), no such facility had implemented a tobacco-free medical campus (TFMC) policy before 2012. This evaluation examined the effects of one Army installation's TFMC policy implementation at its medical facilities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Online questionnaires were distributed to medical campus employees, including Active Duty Soldiers, civilians, and contractors, before policy implementation (N = 1,210) and 12 months following policy implementation (N = 1,147). Chi-square analyses, independent t tests, and logistic regression models were utilized to examine pretest/post-test changes in employees' secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure; tobacco use, motivation to quit, and cessation; and health outcomes. Twenty-three focus groups, interviews, and informal discussions with 65 employees and patients were conducted 13 months after initial policy implementation to capture both the intended and unintended policy effects. RESULTS: After controlling for demographic characteristics, the study found that employees had more than twice the odds of exposure to SHS in the workplace at baseline than at 12-month follow-up (odds ratio: 2.06, 95% confidence interval: 1.73-2.46, p < 0.001). Employees also reported a lower prevalence of diagnosis with chronic bronchitis (p < 0.05) at follow up compared to baseline. Although the mean number of sick days taken for respiratory illness decreased over time, results were not significant after controlling for demographic factors. No significant differences existed in tobacco-use prevalence or quit rates among tobacco users over time. Employees reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with a TFMC policy than the original policy (p < 0.001) though this finding was moderated by smoker status such that smokers reported lower levels of satisfaction with the policy over time. Qualitative findings revealed that the most common policy effect was that the policy caused smokers to change the location of where they used tobacco to off campus. Findings further revealed several unintended policy effects, including safety concerns and greater visibility of smokers in front of the MTF. CONCLUSION: The first Army MTF TFMC policy was associated with reported reductions in SHS exposure and improvements in some short-term health outcomes. The policy had no observed association with tobacco-use prevalence, motivation to quit, or cessation at 12-month follow-up. Focus group participants discussed several positive and negative policy effects. These policies should be expanded and studied in more depth across military installations, and policy makers should plan mitigation strategies to reduce unintended effects. This is an important step in military tobacco control, but additional efforts will be necessary to curb tobacco use within this population.