Cargando…
Identifying actionable strategies: using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)-informed interviews to evaluate the implementation of a multilevel intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening
BACKGROUND: Many evidence-based interventions (EBIs) found to be effective in research studies often fail to translate into meaningful patient outcomes in practice. The purpose of this study was to identify facilitators and barriers that affect the implementation of three EBIs to improve colorectal...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8167995/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34059156 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-021-00150-9 |
_version_ | 1783701800106328064 |
---|---|
author | Lam, Helen Quinn, Michael Cipriano-Steffens, Toni Jayaprakash, Manasi Koebnick, Emily Randal, Fornessa Liebovitz, David Polite, Blasé Kim, Karen |
author_facet | Lam, Helen Quinn, Michael Cipriano-Steffens, Toni Jayaprakash, Manasi Koebnick, Emily Randal, Fornessa Liebovitz, David Polite, Blasé Kim, Karen |
author_sort | Lam, Helen |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Many evidence-based interventions (EBIs) found to be effective in research studies often fail to translate into meaningful patient outcomes in practice. The purpose of this study was to identify facilitators and barriers that affect the implementation of three EBIs to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in an urban federally qualified health center (FQHC) and offer actionable recommendations to improve future implementation efforts. METHODS: We conducted 16 semi-structured interviews guided by the Consolidation Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to describe diverse stakeholders’ implementation experience. The interviews were conducted in the participant’s clinic, audio-taped, and professionally transcribed for analysis. RESULTS: We used the five CFIR domains and 39 constructs and subconstructs as a coding template to conduct a template analysis. Based on experiences with the implementation of three EBIs, stakeholders described barriers and facilitators related to the intervention characteristics, outer setting, and inner setting. Implementation barriers included (1) perceived burden and provider fatigue with EHR (Electronic Health Record) provider reminders, (2) unreliable and ineffectual EHR provider reminders, (3) challenges to providing health care services to diverse patient populations, (4) lack of awareness about CRC screening among patients, (5) absence of CRC screening goals, (6) poor communication on goals and performance, and (7) absence of printed materials for frontline implementers to educate patients. Implementation facilitators included (1) quarterly provider assessment and feedback reports provided real-time data to motivate change, (2) integration with workflow processes, (3) pressure from funding requirement to report quality measures, (4) peer pressure to achieve high performance, and (5) a culture of teamwork and patient-centered mentality. CONCLUSIONS: The CFIR can be used to conduct a post-implementation formative evaluation to identify barriers and facilitators that influenced the implementation. Furthermore, the CFIR can provide a template to organize research data and synthesize findings. With its clear terminology and meta-theoretical framework, the CFIR has the potential to promote knowledge-building for implementation. By identifying the contextual determinants, we can then determine implementation strategies to facilitate adoption and move EBIs to daily practice. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8167995 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81679952021-06-02 Identifying actionable strategies: using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)-informed interviews to evaluate the implementation of a multilevel intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening Lam, Helen Quinn, Michael Cipriano-Steffens, Toni Jayaprakash, Manasi Koebnick, Emily Randal, Fornessa Liebovitz, David Polite, Blasé Kim, Karen Implement Sci Commun Research BACKGROUND: Many evidence-based interventions (EBIs) found to be effective in research studies often fail to translate into meaningful patient outcomes in practice. The purpose of this study was to identify facilitators and barriers that affect the implementation of three EBIs to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in an urban federally qualified health center (FQHC) and offer actionable recommendations to improve future implementation efforts. METHODS: We conducted 16 semi-structured interviews guided by the Consolidation Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to describe diverse stakeholders’ implementation experience. The interviews were conducted in the participant’s clinic, audio-taped, and professionally transcribed for analysis. RESULTS: We used the five CFIR domains and 39 constructs and subconstructs as a coding template to conduct a template analysis. Based on experiences with the implementation of three EBIs, stakeholders described barriers and facilitators related to the intervention characteristics, outer setting, and inner setting. Implementation barriers included (1) perceived burden and provider fatigue with EHR (Electronic Health Record) provider reminders, (2) unreliable and ineffectual EHR provider reminders, (3) challenges to providing health care services to diverse patient populations, (4) lack of awareness about CRC screening among patients, (5) absence of CRC screening goals, (6) poor communication on goals and performance, and (7) absence of printed materials for frontline implementers to educate patients. Implementation facilitators included (1) quarterly provider assessment and feedback reports provided real-time data to motivate change, (2) integration with workflow processes, (3) pressure from funding requirement to report quality measures, (4) peer pressure to achieve high performance, and (5) a culture of teamwork and patient-centered mentality. CONCLUSIONS: The CFIR can be used to conduct a post-implementation formative evaluation to identify barriers and facilitators that influenced the implementation. Furthermore, the CFIR can provide a template to organize research data and synthesize findings. With its clear terminology and meta-theoretical framework, the CFIR has the potential to promote knowledge-building for implementation. By identifying the contextual determinants, we can then determine implementation strategies to facilitate adoption and move EBIs to daily practice. BioMed Central 2021-05-31 /pmc/articles/PMC8167995/ /pubmed/34059156 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-021-00150-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Lam, Helen Quinn, Michael Cipriano-Steffens, Toni Jayaprakash, Manasi Koebnick, Emily Randal, Fornessa Liebovitz, David Polite, Blasé Kim, Karen Identifying actionable strategies: using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)-informed interviews to evaluate the implementation of a multilevel intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening |
title | Identifying actionable strategies: using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)-informed interviews to evaluate the implementation of a multilevel intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening |
title_full | Identifying actionable strategies: using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)-informed interviews to evaluate the implementation of a multilevel intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening |
title_fullStr | Identifying actionable strategies: using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)-informed interviews to evaluate the implementation of a multilevel intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening |
title_full_unstemmed | Identifying actionable strategies: using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)-informed interviews to evaluate the implementation of a multilevel intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening |
title_short | Identifying actionable strategies: using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)-informed interviews to evaluate the implementation of a multilevel intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening |
title_sort | identifying actionable strategies: using consolidated framework for implementation research (cfir)-informed interviews to evaluate the implementation of a multilevel intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8167995/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34059156 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-021-00150-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lamhelen identifyingactionablestrategiesusingconsolidatedframeworkforimplementationresearchcfirinformedinterviewstoevaluatetheimplementationofamultilevelinterventiontoimprovecolorectalcancerscreening AT quinnmichael identifyingactionablestrategiesusingconsolidatedframeworkforimplementationresearchcfirinformedinterviewstoevaluatetheimplementationofamultilevelinterventiontoimprovecolorectalcancerscreening AT ciprianosteffenstoni identifyingactionablestrategiesusingconsolidatedframeworkforimplementationresearchcfirinformedinterviewstoevaluatetheimplementationofamultilevelinterventiontoimprovecolorectalcancerscreening AT jayaprakashmanasi identifyingactionablestrategiesusingconsolidatedframeworkforimplementationresearchcfirinformedinterviewstoevaluatetheimplementationofamultilevelinterventiontoimprovecolorectalcancerscreening AT koebnickemily identifyingactionablestrategiesusingconsolidatedframeworkforimplementationresearchcfirinformedinterviewstoevaluatetheimplementationofamultilevelinterventiontoimprovecolorectalcancerscreening AT randalfornessa identifyingactionablestrategiesusingconsolidatedframeworkforimplementationresearchcfirinformedinterviewstoevaluatetheimplementationofamultilevelinterventiontoimprovecolorectalcancerscreening AT liebovitzdavid identifyingactionablestrategiesusingconsolidatedframeworkforimplementationresearchcfirinformedinterviewstoevaluatetheimplementationofamultilevelinterventiontoimprovecolorectalcancerscreening AT politeblase identifyingactionablestrategiesusingconsolidatedframeworkforimplementationresearchcfirinformedinterviewstoevaluatetheimplementationofamultilevelinterventiontoimprovecolorectalcancerscreening AT kimkaren identifyingactionablestrategiesusingconsolidatedframeworkforimplementationresearchcfirinformedinterviewstoevaluatetheimplementationofamultilevelinterventiontoimprovecolorectalcancerscreening |