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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lam, Helen, Quinn, Michael, Cipriano-Steffens, Toni, Jayaprakash, Manasi, Koebnick, Emily, Randal, Fornessa, Liebovitz, David, Polite, Blasé, Kim, Karen
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