How Single Is “Single” - Some Pragmatic Reflections on Single Versus Multifaceted Interventions to Facilitate Implementation Comment on “Translating Evidence Into Healthcare Policy and Practice: Single Versus Multifaceted Implementation Strategies – Is There a Simple Answer to a Complex Question?”

An earlier overview of systematic reviews and a subsequent editorial on single-component versus multifaceted interventions to promote knowledge translation (KT) highlight complex issues in implementation science. In this supplemented commentary, further aspects are in focus; we propose examples from (KT) studies probing the issue of single interventions. A main point is that defining what is a single and what is a multifaceted intervention can be ambiguous, depending on how the intervention is conceived. Further, we suggest additional perspectives in terms of strategies to facilitate implementation. More specifically, we argue for a need to depict not only what activities are done in implementation interventions, but to unpack functions in particular contexts, in order to support the progress of implementation science

Introduction

BACKGROUND: National quality registries (NQRs) purportedly facilitate quality improvement, while neither the extent nor the mechanisms of such a relationship are fully known. The aim of this case study is to describe the experiences of local stakeholders to determine those elements that facilitate and hinder clinical quality improvement in relation to participation in a well-known and established NQR on stroke in Sweden. METHODS: A strategic sample was drawn of 8 hospitals in 4 county councils, representing a variety of settings and outcomes according to the NQR's criteria. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 25 managers, physicians in charge of the Riks-Stroke, and registered nurses registering local data at the hospitals. Interviews, including aspects of barriers and facilitators within the NQR and the local context, were analysed with content analysis. RESULTS: An NQR can provide vital aspects for facilitating evidence-based practice, for example, local data drawn from national guidelines which can be used for comparisons over time within the organisation or with other hospitals. Major effort is required to ensure that data entries are accurate and valid, and thus the trustworthiness of local data output competes with resources needed for everyday clinical stroke care and quality improvement initiatives. Local stakeholders with knowledge of and interest in both the medical area (in this case stroke) and quality improvement can apply the NQR data to effectively initiate, carry out, and evaluate quality improvement, if supported by managers and co-workers, a common stroke care process and an operational management system that embraces and engages with the NQR data. CONCLUSION: While quality registries are assumed to support adherence to evidence-based guidelines around the world, this study proposes that a NQR can facilitate improvement of care but neither the registry itself nor the reporting of data initiates quality improvement. Rather, the local and general evidence provided by the NQR must be considered relevant and must be applied in the local context. Further, the quality improvement process needs to be facilitated by stakeholders collaborating within and outside the context, who know how to initiate, perform, and evaluate quality improvement, and who have the resources to do so

Clinical interventions, implementation interventions, and the potential greyness in between -a discussion paper

Background: There is increasing awareness that regardless of the proven value of clinical interventions, the use of effective strategies to implement such interventions into clinical practice is necessary to ensure that patients receive the benefits. However, there is often confusion between what is the clinical intervention and what is the implementation intervention. This may be caused by a lack of conceptual clarity between \u27intervention\u27 and \u27implementation\u27, yet at other times by ambiguity in application. We suggest that both the scientific and the clinical communities would benefit from greater clarity; therefore, in this paper, we address the concepts of intervention and implementation, primarily as in clinical interventions and implementation interventions, and explore the grey area in between. Discussion: To begin, we consider the similarities, differences and potential greyness between clinical interventions and implementation interventions through an overview of concepts. This is illustrated with reference to two examples of clinical interventions and implementation intervention studies, including the potential ambiguity in between. We then discuss strategies to explore the hybridity of clinical-implementation intervention studies, including the role of theories, frameworks, models, and reporting guidelines that can be applied to help clarify the clinical and implementation intervention, respectively. Conclusion: Semantics provide opportunities for improved precision in depicting what is \u27intervention\u27 and what is \u27implementation\u27 in health care research. Further, attention to study design, the use of theory, and adoption of reporting guidelines can assist in distinguishing between the clinical intervention and the implementation intervention. However, certain aspects may remain unclear in analyses of hybrid studies of clinical and implementation interventions. Recognizing this potential greyness can inform further discourse

Developing Leadership in Managers to Facilitate the Implementation of National Guideline Recommendations: A Process Evaluation of Feasibility and Usefulness

Background: Previous research supports the claim that managers are vital players in the implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), yet little is known about interventions aiming to develop managers’ leadership in facilitating implementation. In this pilot study, process evaluation was employed to study the feasibility and usefulness of a leadership intervention by exploring the intervention’s potential to support managers in the implementation of national guideline recommendations for stroke care in outpatient rehabilitation. Methods: Eleven senior and frontline managers from five outpatient stroke rehabilitation centers participated in a fourmonth leadership intervention that included workshops, seminars, and teleconferences. The focus was on developing knowledge and skills to enhance the implementation of CPG recommendations, with a particular focus on leadership behaviors. Each dyad of managers was assigned to develop a leadership plan with specific goals and leadership behaviors for implementing three rehabilitation recommendations. Feasibility and usefulness were explored through observations and interviews with the managers and staff members prior to the intervention, and then one month and one year after the intervention. Results: Managers considered the intervention beneficial, particularly the participation of both senior and frontline managers and the focus on leadership knowledge and skills for implementing CPG recommendations. All the managers developed a leadership plan, but only two units identified goals specific to implementing the three stroke rehabilitation recommendations. Of these, only one identified leadership behaviors that support implementation. Conclusion: Managers found that the intervention was delivered in a feasible way and appreciated the focus on leadership to facilitate implementation. However, the intervention appeared to have limited impact on managers’ behaviors or clinical practice at the units. Future interventions directed towards managers should have a stronger focus on developing leadership skills and behaviors to tailor implementation plans and support implementation of CPG recommendations

FIRE (facilitating implementation of research evidence) : a study protocol

Research evidence underpins best practice, but is not always used in healthcare. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework suggests that the nature of evidence, the context in which it is used, and whether those trying to use evidence are helped (or facilitated) affect the use of evidence. Urinary incontinence has a major effect on quality of life of older people, has a high prevalence, and is a key priority within European health and social care policy. Improving continence care has the potential to improve the quality of life for older people and reduce the costs associated with providing incontinence aids

Six Honest Serving Matters, Teaching Us All We Need to Know About Context in Knowledge Implementation? Comment on "Stakeholder Perspectives of Attributes and Features of Context Relevant to Knowledge Translation in Health Settings : A Multi-country Analysis"

While context is a vital factor in any attempt to study knowledge translation or implement evidence in healthcare, there is a need to better understand the attributes and relations that constitute context. A recent study by J. Squires et al investigates such attributes and definitions, based on 39 stakeholder interviews across Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Sixteen attributes, comprising 30 elements suggested as new findings, are proposed as the basis for a framework. This commentary argues for the need to incorporate more perspectives but also suggests an initial taxonomy rather than a framework, comprising a wider range of stakeholders and an enhanced understanding of how context elements are related at different levels and how this affects implementation processes. Aligning with person-centred care, this must include not only professionals but also patients and their next of kin, as partners in shaping more evidence-based healthcare

Facilitating patient participation by embracing patients’ preferences : a discussion

Funding agencies: Forskningsradet i Sydostra Sverige [FORSS-751311]</p

Patient participation : what it is and what it is not

In general, patient participation is regarded as being informed and partaking in decision making regarding one’s care and treatment. This interpretation is common in legislation throughout the Western world and corresponding documents guiding health care professionals, as well as in scientific studies. Even though this understanding of the word participation can be traced to a growing emphasis on individuals’ autonomy in society and to certain dictionary defi nitions, there are other ways of understanding participation from a semantic point of view, and no trace of patients’ descriptions of what it is to participate can be found in these definitions. Hence, the aim of this dissertation was to understand patients’ experience of the phenomenon of patient participation. An additional aim was to understand patients’ experience of non-participation and to describe the conditions for patient participation and non-participation, in order to understand the prerequisites for patient participation. The dissertation comprises four papers. The philosophical ideas of Ricoeur provided a basis for the studies: how communication can present ways to understand and explain experiences of phenomena through phenomenological hermeneutics. The first and second studies involved a group of patients living with chronic heart failure. For the fi rst study, 10 patients were interviewed, with a narrative approach, about their experience of participation and non-participation, as defi ned by the participants. For the second study, 11 visits by three patients at a nurse-led outpatient clinic were observed, and consecutive interviews were performed with the patients and the nurses, investigating what they experience as patient participation and non-participation. A triangulation of data was performed to analyse the occurrence of the phenomena in the observed visits. For paper 3 and 4, a questionnaire was developed and distributed among a diverse group of people who had recent experience of being patients. The questionnaire comprised respondent’s description of what patient participation is, using items based on findings in Study 1, along with open-ended questions for additional aspects and general issues regarding situations in which the respondent had experienced patient participation and/or non-participation. The findings show additional aspects to patient participation: patient participation is being provided with information and knowledge in order for one to comprehend one’s body, disease, and treatment and to be able to take self-care actions based on the context and one’s values. Participation was also found to include providing the information and knowledge one has about the experience of illness and symptoms and of one’s situation. Participation occurs when being listened to and being recognised as an individual and a partner in the health care team. Non-participation, on the other hand, occurs when one is regarded as a symptom, a problem to be solved. To avoid non-participation, the information provided needs to be based on the individual’s need and with recognition of the patient’s knowledge and context. In conclusion, patient participation needs to be reconsidered in health care regulations and in clinical settings: patients’ defi nitions of participation, found to be close to the dictionaries’ description of sharing, should be recognised and opportunities provided for sharing knowledge and experience in two-way-communication

Patient participation : what it is and what it is not

In general, patient participation is regarded as being informed and partaking in decision making regarding one’s care and treatment. This interpretation is common in legislation throughout the Western world and corresponding documents guiding health care professionals, as well as in scientific studies. Even though this understanding of the word participation can be traced to a growing emphasis on individuals’ autonomy in society and to certain dictionary defi nitions, there are other ways of understanding participation from a semantic point of view, and no trace of patients’ descriptions of what it is to participate can be found in these definitions. Hence, the aim of this dissertation was to understand patients’ experience of the phenomenon of patient participation. An additional aim was to understand patients’ experience of non-participation and to describe the conditions for patient participation and non-participation, in order to understand the prerequisites for patient participation. The dissertation comprises four papers. The philosophical ideas of Ricoeur provided a basis for the studies: how communication can present ways to understand and explain experiences of phenomena through phenomenological hermeneutics. The first and second studies involved a group of patients living with chronic heart failure. For the fi rst study, 10 patients were interviewed, with a narrative approach, about their experience of participation and non-participation, as defi ned by the participants. For the second study, 11 visits by three patients at a nurse-led outpatient clinic were observed, and consecutive interviews were performed with the patients and the nurses, investigating what they experience as patient participation and non-participation. A triangulation of data was performed to analyse the occurrence of the phenomena in the observed visits. For paper 3 and 4, a questionnaire was developed and distributed among a diverse group of people who had recent experience of being patients. The questionnaire comprised respondent’s description of what patient participation is, using items based on findings in Study 1, along with open-ended questions for additional aspects and general issues regarding situations in which the respondent had experienced patient participation and/or non-participation. The findings show additional aspects to patient participation: patient participation is being provided with information and knowledge in order for one to comprehend one’s body, disease, and treatment and to be able to take self-care actions based on the context and one’s values. Participation was also found to include providing the information and knowledge one has about the experience of illness and symptoms and of one’s situation. Participation occurs when being listened to and being recognised as an individual and a partner in the health care team. Non-participation, on the other hand, occurs when one is regarded as a symptom, a problem to be solved. To avoid non-participation, the information provided needs to be based on the individual’s need and with recognition of the patient’s knowledge and context. In conclusion, patient participation needs to be reconsidered in health care regulations and in clinical settings: patients’ defi nitions of participation, found to be close to the dictionaries’ description of sharing, should be recognised and opportunities provided for sharing knowledge and experience in two-way-communication

Digital communication in primary care: A qualitative descriptive study of patient interviews considering person-centred care

With the growing demand for primary care, provision needs to be efficient, yet retain person-centred and integrated care. Digital communication is suggested as a way to settle these aspects, although there is insufficient knowledge regarding the end-user's perspective. The aim of this study was to describe patients’ experiences of digital communication in their primary care contact, while considering aspects of person-centred care. A purposeful sample of 16 patients (aged 28–85 years) was interviewed via telephone in a qualitative design, and verbatim transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis and a subsequent deductive approach in relation to a person-centred care framework. The study was reported following the COREQ guidelines. The findings indicate that, from a patient perspective, digital communication enables independent contact where one crafts one's medical history at a time and place convenient for oneself, providing opportunities for the primary care triage to consider one's individual input. These aspects of digital communication serve person-centredness, although they were less suitable for certain health issues, but a human interaction was most appropriate when health concerns were ambiguous or complex. Thus, digital communication may serve patients in primary care, but the development and implementation of such services must move beyond technical and professional perspectives. In order to facilitate integrated care, further emphasis is needed on both patients’ experiences, and the principles of person-centred care