3 research outputs found
Implementation of Dynamic Lycra® Orthoses for Arm Rehabilitation in the Context of a Randomised Controlled Feasibility Trial in Stroke:A Qualitative study Using Normalisation Process Theory
OBJECTIVE: To explore how non-research funded rehabilitation practitioners implemented dynamic Lycra(®) orthoses for arm recovery after stroke into rehabilitation practice, as part of a feasibility randomised controlled trial. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. SETTING: Two in-patient stroke units and associated rehabilitation units. SUBJECTS: Fifteen purposefully selected stroke rehabilitation practitioners involved in delivery of dynamic Lycra(®) orthoses as part of a feasibility randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews conducted at the end of the trial. Interviews examined their experiences of orthosis implementation. Normalisation Process Theory structured the interview guide and informed data analysis. NVivo software supported data analysis. RESULTS: Practitioners intuitively made sense of the intervention in the face of uncertainty about its precise mechanisms of action (Normalisation Process Theory construct: coherence) and espoused commitment to the research, despite uncertainty about orthosis effectiveness (cognitive participation). They did however adapt the intervention based on perceived therapeutic need, their own skillsets and stroke survivor preference (collective action). They were uncertain about benefits (reflexive monitoring). Across the 4 theoretical constructs, ambivalence about the intervention was detected. CONCLUSIONS: Ambivalence interfered with implementation – but only to an extent. ‘Good-enough’ coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring were sufficient to initiate normalisation – as long as implementation did not undermine the relationship between practitioner and stroke survivor. Ambivalence stemmed from practitioners’ uncertainty about the intervention theory and mechanisms of action. Making intervention mechanisms of action more explicit to practitioners may influence how they implement and adapt a research intervention, and may determine whether those processes undermine or enhance outcomes
Pharmacist and Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care (P-DQIP):A qualitative study of anticipated implementation factors informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework
Objectives: The quality and safety of drug therapy in primary care are global concerns. The Pharmacist and Data driven Quality Improvement in Primary care (P-DQIP) intervention aims to improve prescribing safety via an informatics tool which facilitates proactive management of drug therapy risks (DTRs) by health-board employed pharmacists with established roles in general practices. Study objectives were (1) to identify and prioritise factors that could influence P-DQIP implementation from the perspective of practice pharmacists, and (2) to identify potentially effective, acceptable and feasible strategies to support P-DQIP implementation. Design: Semi-structured face-to-face interviews using a Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) informed topic guide. The framework method was used for data analysis. Identified implementation factors were prioritised for intervention based on research team consensus. Candidate intervention functions, behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and policies targeting these were identified from the Behaviour Change Wheel. The final intervention content and modes of delivery were agreed with local senior pharmacists. Setting: General practices from three Health and Social Care Partnerships (HSCPs) in NHS Tayside. Participants: 14 NHS employed practice pharmacists. Results: Identified implementation factors were linked to thirteen theoretical domains (all except intentions) and six (skill, memory/attention/decision-making, behavioural regulation, reinforcement, environmental context/resources, social influences) were prioritised. Three intervention functions (training, enablement, and environmental restructuring) were relevant and were served by two policy categories (guidelines, communication/marketing) and eight BCTs (Instructions on how to perform a behaviour, problem solving, action planning, prompt/cues, goal setting, self-monitoring, feedback, restructuring the social environment). Intervention components encompass an informatics tool, written educational material, a workshop for pharmacists, promotional activities, and small financial incentives. Conclusions: This study explored pharmacists’ perceptions of implementation factors which could influence management of DTRs in general practices to inform implementation of P-DQIP, which will initially be implemented in one Scottish health board with parallel evaluation of effectiveness and implementation
Relation of severe COVID-19 in Scotland to transmission-related factors and risk conditions eligible for shielding support:REACT-SCOT case-control study
Abstract Background Clinically vulnerable individuals have been advised to shield themselves during the COVID-19 epidemic. The objectives of this study were to investigate (1) the rate ratio of severe COVID-19 associated with eligibility for the shielding programme in Scotland across the first and second waves of the epidemic and (2) the relation of severe COVID-19 to transmission-related factors in those in shielding and the general population. Methods In a matched case-control design, all 178,578 diagnosed cases of COVID-19 in Scotland from 1 March 2020 to 18 February 2021 were matched for age, sex and primary care practice to 1,744,283 controls from the general population. This dataset (REACT-SCOT) was linked to the list of 212,702 individuals identified as eligible for shielding. Severe COVID-19 was defined as cases that entered critical care or were fatal. Rate ratios were estimated by conditional logistic regression. Results With those without risk conditions as reference category, the univariate rate ratio for severe COVID-19 was 3.21 (95% CI 3.01 to 3.41) in those with moderate risk conditions and 6.3 (95% CI 5.8 to 6.8) in those eligible for shielding. The highest rate was in solid organ transplant recipients: rate ratio 13.4 (95% CI 9.6 to 18.8). Risk of severe COVID-19 increased with the number of adults but decreased with the number of school-age children in the household. Severe COVID-19 was strongly associated with recent exposure to hospital (defined as 5 to 14 days before presentation date): rate ratio 12.3 (95% CI 11.5 to 13.2) overall. The population attributable risk fraction for recent exposure to hospital peaked at 50% in May 2020 and again at 65% in December 2020. Conclusions The effectiveness of shielding vulnerable individuals was limited by the inability to control transmission in hospital and from other adults in the household. Mitigating the impact of the epidemic requires control of nosocomial transmission