The role of context in implementation research for non-communicable diseases: Answering the 'how-to' dilemma.

INTRODUCTION:Understanding context and how this can be systematically assessed and incorporated is crucial to successful implementation. We describe how context has been assessed (including exploration or evaluation) in Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases (GACD) implementation research projects focused on improving health in people with or at risk of chronic disease and how contextual lessons were incorporated into the intervention or the implementation process. METHODS:Using a web-based semi-structured questionnaire, we conducted a cross-sectional survey to collect quantitative and qualitative data across GACD projects (n = 20) focusing on hypertension, diabetes and lung diseases. The use of context-specific data from project planning to evaluation was analyzed using mixed methods and a multi-layered context framework across five levels; 1) individual and family, 2) community, 3) healthcare setting, 4) local or district level, and 5) state or national level. RESULTS:Project teams used both qualitative and mixed methods to assess multiple levels of context (avg. = 4). Methodological approaches to assess context were identified as formal and informal assessments, engagement of stakeholders, use of locally adapted resources and materials, and use of diverse data sources. Contextual lessons were incorporated directly into the intervention by informing or adapting the intervention, improving intervention participation or improving communication with participants/stakeholders. Provision of services, equipment or information, continuous engagement with stakeholders, feedback for personnel to address gaps, and promoting institutionalization were themes identified to describe how contextual lessons are incorporated into the implementation process. CONCLUSIONS:Context is regarded as critical and influenced the design and implementation of the GACD funded chronic disease interventions. There are different approaches to assess and incorporate context as demonstrated by this study and further research is required to systematically evaluate contextual approaches in terms of how they contribute to effectiveness or implementation outcomes

Gaps in guidelines for the management of diabetes in low- and middle-income versus high-income countriesda systematic review

OBJECTIVE: The extentto which diabetes (DM) practice guidelines, often basedon evidence from high-income countries (HIC), can be implemented to improve outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is a critical challenge. We carried out a systematic review to compare type 2 DM guidelines in individual LMIC versus HIC over the past decade to identify aspects that could be improved to facilitate implementation. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Eligible guidelines were sought from online databases and websites of diabetes associations and ministries of health. Type 2 DM guidelines published between 2006 and 2016 with accessible full publications were included. Each of the 54 eligible guidelines was assessed for compliance with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards, coverage of the cardiovascular quadrangle (epidemiologic surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation), translatability, and its target audiences. RESULTS: Most LMIC guidelines were inadequate in terms of applicability, clarity, and dissemination planaswellassocioeconomic and ethical-legal contextualization.LMIC guidelines targeted mainly health care providers, with only a few including patients (7%), payers (11%), and policy makers (18%) as their target audiences. Compared with HIC guidelines, the spectrum of DM clinical care addressed by LMIC guidelines was narrow. Most guidelines from the LMIC complied with less than half of the IOM standards, with 12% of the LMIC guidelines satisfying at least four IOM criteria as opposed to 60% of the HIC guidelines (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A new approachto the contextualization, content development, and deliveryofLMIC guidelines is needed to improve outcomes. © 2018 by the American Diabetes Association

The role of context in implementation research for non-communicable diseases : Answering the 'how-to' dilemma

Introduction Understanding context and how this can be systematically assessed and incorporated is crucial to successful implementation. We describe how context has been assessed (including exploration or evaluation) in Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases (GACD) implementation research projects focused on improving health in people with or at risk of chronic disease and how contextual lessons were incorporated into the intervention or the implementation process. Methods Using a web-based semi-structured questionnaire, we conducted a cross-sectional survey to collect quantitative and qualitative data across GACD projects (n = 20) focusing on hypertension, diabetes and lung diseases. The use of context-specific data from project planning to evaluation was analyzed using mixed methods and a multi-layered context framework across five levels; 1) individual and family, 2) community, 3) healthcare setting, 4) local or district level, and 5) state or national level. Results Project teams used both qualitative and mixed methods to assess multiple levels of context (avg. = 4). Methodological approaches to assess context were identified as formal and informal assessments, engagement of stakeholders, use of locally adapted resources and materials, and use of diverse data sources. Contextual lessons were incorporated directly into the intervention by informing or adapting the intervention, improving intervention participation or improving communication with participants/stakeholders. Provision of services, equipment or information, continuous engagement with stakeholders, feedback for personnel to address gaps, and promoting institutionalization were themes identified to describe how contextual lessons are incorporated into the implementation process. Conclusions Context is regarded as critical and influenced the design and implementation of the GACD funded chronic disease interventions. There are different approaches to assess and incorporate context as demonstrated by this study and further research is required to systematically evaluate contextual approaches in terms of how they contribute to effectiveness or implementation outcomes