African American women's perceptions of cancer clinical trials

Cancer clinical trials are important for resolving cancer health disparities for several reasons; however, clinical trial participation among African Americans is significantly lower than Caucasians. This study engaged focus groups of 82 female African American cancer survivors or cancer caregivers, including those in better resourced, more urban areas and less resourced, more rural areas. Informed by an integrated conceptual model, the focus groups examined perceptions of cancer clinical trials and identified leverage points that future interventions may use to improve enrollment rates. Study findings highlight variation in community knowledge regarding cancer clinical trials, and the importance of community education regarding clinical trials and overcoming historical stigma associated with clinical research specifically and the health care system more generally. Study participants commented on the centrality of churches in their communities, and thus the promise of the church as loci of such education. Findings also suggested the value of informed community leaders as community information sources, including community members who have a previous diagnosis of cancer and clinical trial experience. The sample size and location of the focus groups may limit the generalizability of the results. Since the women in the focus groups were either cancer survivors or caregivers, they may have different experiences than nonparticipants who lack the close connection with cancer. Trust in the health system and in one's physician was seen as important factors associated with patient willingness to enroll in clinical trials, and participants suggested that physicians who were compassionate and who engaged and educated their patients would build important trust requisite for patient participation in clinical trials

Implementation and sustainment of diverse practices in a large integrated health system: a mixed methods study

Background: One goal of health systems seeking to evolve into learning health systems is to accelerate the implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practices (EBPs). As part of this evolution, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Innovation Ecosystem, which includes the Diffusion of Excellence (DoE), a program that identifies and diffuses Gold Status Practices (GSPs) across facilities. The DoE hosts an annual Shark Tank competition in which leaders bid on the opportunity to implement a GSP with 6 months of implementation support. Over 750 diverse practices were submitted in cohorts 2 and 3 of Shark Tank; 23 were designated GSPs and were implemented in 31 VA networks or facilities. As part of a national evaluation of the DoE, we identified factors contributing to GSP implementation and sustainment. Methods: Our sequential mixed methods evaluation of cohorts 2 and 3 of Shark Tank included semi-structured interviews with at least one representative from 30/31 implementing teams (N = 78/105 people invited) and survey responses from 29/31 teams (N = 39/47 invited). Interviews focused on factors influencing implementation and future sustainment. Surveys focused on sustainment 1.5-2 years after implementation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) informed data collection and directed content analysis. Ordinal scales were developed inductively to rank implementation and sustainment outcomes. Results: Over 50% of teams (17/30) successfully implemented their GSP within the 6-month implementation period. Despite extensive implementation support, significant barriers related to centralized decision-making, staffing, and resources led to partial (n = 6) or no (n = 7) implementation for the remaining teams. While 12/17 initially successful implementation teams reported sustained use of their GSP, over half of the initially unsuccessful teams (n = 7/13) also reported sustained GSP use 1.5 years after the initial implementation period. When asked at 6 months, 18/27 teams with complete data accurately anticipated their future sustainability based on reported sustainment an average of 1.5 years later. Conclusions: Most teams implemented within 6 months and/or sustained their GSP 1.5 years later. High levels of implementation and sustainment across diverse practices and teams suggest that VHA\u27s DoE is a successful large-scale model of diffusion. Team predictions about sustainability after the first 6 months of implementation provide a promising early assessment and point of intervention to increase sustainability

Perceptions of Cancer Clinical Research Among African American Men in North Carolina

The problem of cancer health disparities is substantial. Clinical trials are widely advocated as a means of reducing disparities and bringing state-of-the-art care to the broader community, where most cancer care is delivered. This study sought to develop a better understanding of why disproportionately few African American men enroll in clinical trials given their substantial cancer burden

Diffusion of excellence: evaluating a system to identify, replicate, and spread promising innovative practices across the Veterans health administration

IntroductionThe Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE) program provides a system to identify, replicate, and spread promising practices across the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States. DoE identifies innovations that have been successfully implemented in the VHA through a Shark Tank style competition. VHA facility and regional directors bid resources needed to replicate promising practices. Winning facilities/regions receive external facilitation to aid in replication/implementation over the course of a year. DoE staff then support diffusion of successful practices across the nationwide VHA.MethodsOrganized around the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) Framework, we summarize results of an ongoing long-term mixed-methods implementation evaluation of DoE. Data sources include: Shark Tank application and bid details, tracking practice adoptions through a Diffusion Marketplace, characteristics of VHA facilities, focus groups with Shark Tank bidders, structured observations of DoE events, surveys of DoE program participants, and semi-structured interviews of national VHA program office leaders, VHA healthcare system/facility executives, practice developers, implementation teams and facilitators.ResultsIn the first eight Shark Tanks (2016–2022), 3,280 Shark Tank applications were submitted; 88 were designated DoE Promising Practices (i.e., practices receive facilitated replication). DoE has effectively spread practices across the VHA, with 1,440 documented instances of adoption/replication of practices across the VHA. This includes 180 adoptions/replications in facilities located in rural areas. Leadership decisions to adopt innovations are often based on big picture considerations such as constituency support and linkage to organizational goals. DoE Promising Practices that have the greatest national spread have been successfully replicated at new sites during the facilitated replication process, have close partnerships with VHA national program offices, and tend to be less expensive to implement. Two indicators of sustainment indicate that 56 of the 88 Promising Practices are still being diffused across the VHA; 56% of facilities originally replicating the practices have sustained them, even up to 6 years after the first Shark Tank.ConclusionDoE has developed a sustainable process for the identification, replication, and spread of promising practices as part of a learning health system committed to providing equitable access to high quality care

Implementation science: Helping healthcare systems improve

Using current evidence in practice is critical for phy-sician assistants (PAs). During training and after, PAs focus on learning the process and practice of evidence-based medicine. But despite the focus on evidence-based medicine, fewer than 20% of original research findings are translated into practice to benefit patients.1Research findings that do get adopted take about 17 years to become common clinical practice. Implementation science is the research field that focuses on shortening the time between evidence generation and service delivery; knowledge of implementation science is therefore essential for those interested in improving healthcare delivery

Balancing reality in embedded research and evaluation: Low vs high embeddedness

Embedding research and evaluation into organizations is one way to generate “practice-based” evidence needed to accelerate implementation of evidence-based innovations within learning health systems. Organizations and researchers/evaluators vary greatly in how they structure and operationalize these collaborations. One key aspect is the degree of embeddedness: from low embeddedness where researchers/evaluators are located outside organizations (eg, outside evaluation consultants) to high embeddedness where researchers/evaluators are employed by organizations and thus more deeply involved in program evolution and operations. Pros and cons related to the degree of embeddedness (low vs high) must be balanced when developing these relationships. We reflect on this process within the context of an embedded, mixed-methods evaluation of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE) program. Considerations that must be balanced include: (a) low vs high alignment of goals; (b) low vs high involvement in strategic planning; (c) observing what is happening vs being integrally involved with programmatic activities; (d) reporting findings at the project’s end vs providing iterative findings and recommendations that contribute to program evolution; and (e) adhering to predetermined aims vs adapting aims in response to evolving partner needs.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/172341/1/lrh210294.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/172341/2/lrh210294_am.pd

Rapid versus traditional qualitative analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)

BACKGROUND: Qualitative approaches, alone or in mixed methods, are prominent within implementation science. However, traditional qualitative approaches are resource intensive, which has led to the development of rapid qualitative approaches. Published rapid approaches are often inductive in nature and rely on transcripts of interviews. We describe a deductive rapid analysis approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) that uses notes and audio recordings. This paper compares our rapid versus traditional deductive CFIR approach. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted for two cohorts of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE). The CFIR guided data collection and analysis. In cohort A, we used our traditional CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where two analysts completed independent in-depth manual coding of interview transcripts using qualitative software. In cohort B, we used our new rapid CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where the primary analyst wrote detailed notes during interviews and immediately coded notes into a MS Excel CFIR construct by facility matrix; a secondary analyst then listened to audio recordings and edited the matrix. We tracked time for our traditional and rapid deductive CFIR approaches using a spreadsheet and captured transcription costs from invoices. We retrospectively compared our approaches in terms of effectiveness and rigor. RESULTS: Cohorts A and B were similar in terms of the amount of data collected. However, our rapid deductive CFIR approach required 409.5 analyst hours compared to 683 h during the traditional deductive CFIR approach. The rapid deductive approach eliminated $7250 in transcription costs. The facility-level analysis phase provided the greatest savings: 14 h/facility for the traditional analysis versus 3.92 h/facility for the rapid analysis. Data interpretation required the same number of hours for both approaches. CONCLUSION: Our rapid deductive CFIR approach was less time intensive and eliminated transcription costs, yet effective in meeting evaluation objectives and establishing rigor. Researchers should consider the following when employing our approach: (1) team expertise in the CFIR and qualitative methods, (2) level of detail needed to meet project aims, (3) mode of data to analyze, and (4) advantages and disadvantages of using the CFIR

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Innovators Network: Evaluation design, methods and lessons learned through an embedded research approach

BACKGROUND: Collaboration between researchers, implementers and policymakers improves uptake of health systems research. In 2018, researchers and VHA Innovators Network (iNET) leadership used an embedded research model to conduct an evaluation of iNET. We describe our evaluation design, early results, and lessons learned. METHODS: This mixed-methods evaluation incorporated primary data collection via electronic survey, descriptive analysis using existing VA datasets (examining associations between facility characteristics and iNET participation), and qualitative interviews to support real-time program implementation and to probe perceived impacts, benefits and challenges of participation. RESULTS: We developed reporting tools and collected data regarding site participation, providing iNET leadership rapid access to needed information on projects (e.g., target populations reached, milestones achieved, and barriers encountered). Secondary data analyses indicated iNET membership was greater among larger, more complex VA facilities. Of the 37 iNET member sites, over half (n = 22) did not have any of the six major types of VA research centers; thus iNET is supporting VA sites not traditionally served by research innovation pathways. Qualitative findings highlighted enhanced engagement and perceived value of social and informational networks. CONCLUSIONS: Working alongside our iNET partners, we supported and influenced iNET\u27s development through our embedded evaluation\u27s preliminary findings. We also provided training and guidance aimed at building capacity among iNET participants. IMPLICATIONS: Embedded research can yield successful collaborative efforts between researchers and partners. An embedded research team can help programs pivot to ensure effective use of limited resources. Such models inform program development and expansion, supporting strategic planning and demonstrating value

Sustainment of diverse evidence-informed practices disseminated in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA): initial development and piloting of a pragmatic survey tool

Abstract Background There are challenges associated with measuring sustainment of evidence-informed practices (EIPs). First, the terms sustainability and sustainment are often falsely conflated: sustainability assesses the likelihood of an EIP being in use in the future while sustainment assesses the extent to which an EIP is (or is not) in use. Second, grant funding often ends before sustainment can be assessed. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE) program is one of few large-scale models of diffusion; it seeks to identify and disseminate practices across the VHA system. The DoE sponsors “Shark Tank” competitions, in which leaders bid on the opportunity to implement a practice with approximately 6 months of implementation support. As part of an ongoing evaluation of the DoE, we sought to develop and pilot a pragmatic survey tool to assess sustainment of DoE practices. Methods In June 2020, surveys were sent to 64 facilities that were part of the DoE evaluation. We began analysis by comparing alignment of quantitative and qualitative responses; some facility representatives reported in the open-text box of the survey that their practice was on a temporary hold due to COVID-19 but answered the primary outcome question differently. As a result, the team reclassified the primary outcome of these facilities to Sustained: Temporary COVID-Hold. Following this reclassification, the number and percent of facilities in each category was calculated. We used directed content analysis, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to analyze open-text box responses. Results A representative from forty-one facilities (64%) completed the survey. Among responding facilities, 29/41 sustained their practice, 1/41 partially sustained their practice, 8/41 had not sustained their practice, and 3/41 had never implemented their practice. Sustainment rates increased between Cohorts 1–4. Conclusions The initial development and piloting of our pragmatic survey allowed us to assess sustainment of DoE practices. Planned updates to the survey will enable flexibility in assessing sustainment and its determinants at any phase after adoption. This assessment approach can flex with the longitudinal and dynamic nature of sustainment, including capturing nuances in outcomes when practices are on a temporary hold. If additional piloting illustrates the survey is useful, we plan to assess the reliability and validity of this measure for broader use in the field

The Art and Science of Integrating Undoing Racism with CBPR: Challenges of Pursuing NIH Funding to Investigate Cancer Care and Racial Equity

In this nation, the unequal burden of disease among People of Color has been well documented. One starting point to eliminating health disparities is recognizing the existence of inequities in health care delivery and identifying the complexities of how institutional racism may operate within the health care system. In this paper, we explore the integration of community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles with an Undoing Racism process to conceptualize, design, apply for, and secure National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding to investigate the complexities of racial equity in the system of breast cancer care. Additionally, we describe the sequence of activities and “necessary conflicts” managed by our Health Disparities Collaborative to design and submit an application for NIH funding. This process of integrating CBPR principles with anti-racist community organizing presented unique challenges that were negotiated only by creating a strong foundation of trusting relationships that viewed conflict as being necessary. The process of developing a successful NIH grant proposal illustrated a variety of important lessons associated with the concepts of cultural humility and cultural safety. For successfully conducting CBPR, major challenges have included: assembling and mobilizing a partnership; the difficulty of establishing a shared vision and purpose for the group; the problem of maintaining trust; and the willingness to address differences in institutional cultures. Expectation, acceptance and negotiation of conflict were essential in the process of developing, preparing and submitting our NIH application. Central to negotiating these and other challenges has been the utilization of a CBPR approach