| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Hasson, H., et al.
(författare)
-
The adaptation and fidelity tool to support social service practitioners in balancing fidelity and adaptations : Longitudinal, mixed-method evaluation study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Implementation Research and Practice. - : SAGE Publications Ltd. - 2633-4895. ; 4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Evidence-based interventions (EBIs) seldom fit seamlessly into a setting and are often adapted. The literature identifies practitioners’ management of fidelity and adaptations as problematic but offers little guidance. This study aimed to investigate practitioners’ perceptions of the feasibility and usability of an intervention aimed to support them in fidelity and adaptation management when working with EBIs. Methods: The intervention, the adaptation and fidelity tool (A-FiT), was developed based on the literature, along with input from social service practitioners and social services’ Research and Development units’ personnel. The intervention consisted of two workshops where the participants were guided through a five-step process to manage fidelity and adaptations. It was tested in a longitudinal mixed-method intervention study with 103 practitioners from 19 social service units in Stockholm, Sweden. A multimethod data collection was employed, which included interviews at follow-up, questionnaires at baseline and follow-up (readiness for change and self-rated knowledge), workshop evaluation questionnaires (usability and feasibility) after each workshop, and documentation (participants’ notes on worksheets). To analyze the data, qualitative content analysis, Kruskal–Wallis tests, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed. Results: Overall, the practitioners had a positive perception of the intervention and perceived it as relevant for fidelity and adaptation management (mean ratings over 7.0 on usability and feasibility). The workshops also provided new knowledge and skills to manage fidelity and adaptations. Furthermore, the intervention provided insights into the practitioners’ understanding about adaptation and fidelity through a more reflective approach. Conclusion: Practical tools are needed to guide professionals not only to adhere to intervention core elements but also to help them to manage fidelity and adaptation. The proposed A-FiT intervention for practitioners’ management of both fidelity and adaptation is a novel contribution to the implementation literature. Potentially, the next step is an evaluation of the intervention's impact in an experimental design.
|
|
| 3. |
- Hasson, H., et al.
(författare)
-
To do or not to do - Balancing governance and professional autonomy to abandon low-value practices : A study protocol
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Implementation Science. - : BioMed Central Ltd.. - 1748-5908. ; 14:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Many interventions used in health care lack evidence of effectiveness and may be unnecessary or even cause harm, and should therefore be de-implemented. Lists of such ineffective, low-value practices are common, but these lists have little chance of leading to improvements without sufficient knowledge regarding how de-implementation can be governed and carried out. However, decisions regarding de-implementation are not only a matter of scientific evidence; the puzzle is far more complex with political, economic, and relational interests play a role. This project aims at exploring the governance of de-implementation of low-value practices from the perspectives of national and regional governments and senior management at provider organizations. Methods: Theories of complexity science and organizational alignment are used, and interviews are conducted with stakeholders involved in the governance of low-value practice de-implementation, including national and regional governments (focusing on two contrasting regions in Sweden) and senior management at provider organizations. In addition, an ongoing process for governing de-implementation in accordance with current recommendations is followed over an 18-month period to explore how governance is conducted in practice. A framework for the governance of de-implementation and policy suggestions will be developed to guide de-implementation governance. Discussion: This study contributes to knowledge about the governance of de-implementation of low-value care practices. The study provides rich empirical data from multiple system levels regarding how de-implementation of low-value practices is currently governed. The study also makes a theoretical contribution by applying the theories of complexity and organizational alignment, which may provide generalizable knowledge about the interplay between stakeholders across system levels and how and why certain factors influence the governance of de-implementation. The project employs a solution-oriented perspective by developing a framework for de-implementation of low-value practices and suggesting practical strategies to improve the governance of de-implementation. The framework and strategies can thereafter be evaluated for validity and impact in future studies.
|
|
| 4. |
- Ingvarsson, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Why do they do it? : A grounded theory study of the use of low-value care among primary health care physicians
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Implementation Science. - : BioMed Central Ltd. - 1748-5908. ; 15:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The use of low-value care (LVC) is widespread and has an impact on both the use of resources and the quality of care. However, few studies have thus far studied the factors influencing the use of LVC from the perspective of the practitioners themselves. The aim of this study is to understand why physicians within primary care use LVC. Methods: Six primary health care centers in the Stockholm Region were purposively selected. Focus group discussions were conducted with physicians (n = 31) working in the centers. The discussions were coded inductively using a grounded theory approach. Results: Three main reasons for performing LVC were identified. Uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do was related to being unaware of the LVC status of a practice, guidelines perceived as conflicting, guidelines perceived to be irrelevant for the target patient population, or a lack of trust in the guidelines. Perceived pressure from others concerned patient pressure, pressure from other physicians, or pressure from the health care system. A desire to do something for the patients was associated with the fact that the visit in itself prompts action, symptoms to relieve, or that patients' emotions need to be reassured. The three reasons are interdependent. Uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do have made it more difficult to handle the pressure from others and to refrain from doing something for the patients. The pressure from others and the desire to do something for the patients enhanced the uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do. Furthermore, the pressure from others influenced the desire to do something for the patients. Conclusions: Three reasons work together to explain primary care physicians’ use of LVC: uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do, perceived pressure from others, and the desire to do something for the patients. The reasons may, in turn, be influenced by the health care system, but the decision nevertheless seemed to be up to the individual physician. The findings suggest that the de-implementation of LVC needs to address the three reasons from a systems perspective.
|
|
| 5. |
- Mosson, R., et al.
(författare)
-
Building implementation capacity (BIC) : A longitudinal mixed methods evaluation of a team intervention
- 2019
-
Ingår i: BMC Health Services Research. - : BioMed Central Ltd.. - 1472-6963. ; 19:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Managers and professionals in health and social care are required to implement evidence-based methods. Despite this, they generally lack training in implementation. In clinical settings, implementation is often a team effort, so it calls for team training. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of the Building Implementation Capacity (BIC) intervention that targets teams of professionals, including their managers. Methods: A non-randomized design was used, with two intervention cases (each consisting of two groups). The longitudinal, mixed-methods evaluation included pre-post and workshop-evaluation questionnaires, and interviews following Kirkpatrick's four-level evaluation framework. The intervention was delivered in five workshops, using a systematic implementation method with exercises and practical working materials. To improve transfer of training, the teams' managers were included. Practical experiences were combined with theoretical knowledge, social interactions, reflections, and peer support. Results: Overall, the participants were satisfied with the intervention (first level), and all groups increased their self-rated implementation knowledge (second level). The qualitative results indicated that most participants applied what they had learned by enacting new implementation behaviors (third level). However, they only partially applied the implementation method, as they did not use the planned systematic approach. A few changes in organizational results occurred (fourth level). Conclusions: The intervention had positive effects with regard to the first two levels of the evaluation model; that is, the participants were satisfied with the intervention and improved their knowledge and skills. Some positive changes also occurred on the third level (behaviors) and fourth level (organizational results), but these were not as clear as the results for the first two levels. This highlights the fact that further optimization is needed to improve transfer of training when building teams' implementation capacity. In addition to considering the design of such interventions, the organizational context and the participants' characteristics may also need to be considered to maximize the chances that the learned skills will be successfully transferred to behaviors.
|
|
| 6. |
- Nilsen, P., et al.
(författare)
-
Theories, models and frameworks for de-implementation of low-value care : A scoping review of the literature
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Implementation Research and Practice. - 2633-4895.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Achieving an evidence-based practice not only depends on implementation of evidence-based interventions (programs, methods, etc.) but also requires de-implementing interventions that are not evidence-based, that is, low-value care (LVC). Thus, de-implementation is the other side of the coin of an evidence-based practice. However, this is quite a new topic and knowledge is lacking concerning how de-implementation and implementation processes and determinants might differ. It is almost mandatory for implementation researchers to use theories, models, and frameworks (i.e., “theoretical approaches”) to describe, guide, or explain implementation processes and determinants. To what extent are such approaches also used with regard to de-implementation of LVC? And what are the characteristics of such approaches when analyzing de-implementation processes? We reviewed the literature to explore issues such as these. We identified only 10 studies describing theoretical approaches that have been used concerning de-implementation of LVC. Five studies presented approaches developed specifically for de-implementation of LVC and five studies applied an already-existing approach usually applied to analyze implementation processes. Most of the theoretical approaches we found suggest a multi-level understanding of de-implementation of LVC, that is, successfully de-implementing LVC may require strategies that target teams, departments, and organizations and merely focus on individual health care practitioners. The findings point to the need for more research to identify the most important processes and determinants for successful de-implementation of LVC, and to explore differences between de-implementation and implementation. In terms of practice and policy implications, the study underscores the relevance of addressing multiple levels when attempting to de-implement LVC.
|
|
| 7. |
- Nilsen, P, et al.
(författare)
-
Theories, models, and frameworks for de-implementation of low-value care: A scoping review of the literature
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Implementation research and practice. - : SAGE Publications. - 2633-4895. ; 1, s. 2633489520953762-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of this scoping review was to identify theories, models, and frameworks for understanding the processes and determinants of de-implementing low-value care (LVC). We investigated theories, models, and frameworks developed specifically for de-implementation of LVC (conceptual studies) and those that were originally developed for implementation of evidence-based practices but were applied in studies to analyze de-implementation of LVC (empirical studies). Methods: We performed a scoping review to identify theories, models, and frameworks used to describe, guide, or explain de-implementation of LVC, encompassing four stages following the identification of the research question: (1) identifying relevant studies; (2) study selection; (3) charting the data; and (4) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. The database searches yielded 9,642 citations. After removing duplicates, 6,653 remained for the abstract screening process. After screening the abstracts, 76 citations remained. Of these, 10 studies were included in the review. Results: We identified 10 studies describing theories, models, and frameworks that have been used to understand de-implementation of LVC. Five studies presented theories, models, or frameworks developed specifically for de-implementation of LVC (i.e., conceptual studies) and five studies applied an existing theory, model, or framework concerning implementation of evidence-based practices (i.e., empirical studies). Conclusion: Most of the theories, models, and frameworks that are used to analyze LVC suggest a multi-level understanding of de-implementation of LVC. The role of the patient is inconsistent in these theories, models, and frameworks; patients are accounted for in some but not in others. The findings point to the need for more research to identify the most important processes and determinants for successful de-implementation of LVC and to explore differences between de-implementation and implementation. Plain language abstract Achieving an evidence-based practice not only depends on implementation of evidence-based interventions (programs, methods, etc.) but also requires de-implementing interventions that are not evidence-based, that is, low-value care (LVC). Thus, de-implementation is the other side of the coin of an evidence-based practice. However, this is quite a new topic and knowledge is lacking concerning how de-implementation and implementation processes and determinants might differ. It is almost mandatory for implementation researchers to use theories, models, and frameworks (i.e., “theoretical approaches”) to describe, guide, or explain implementation processes and determinants. To what extent are such approaches also used with regard to de-implementation of LVC? And what are the characteristics of such approaches when analyzing de-implementation processes? We reviewed the literature to explore issues such as these. We identified only 10 studies describing theoretical approaches that have been used concerning de-implementation of LVC. Five studies presented approaches developed specifically for de-implementation of LVC and five studies applied an already-existing approach usually applied to analyze implementation processes. Most of the theoretical approaches we found suggest a multi-level understanding of de-implementation of LVC, that is, successfully de-implementing LVC may require strategies that target teams, departments, and organizations and merely focus on individual health care practitioners. The findings point to the need for more research to identify the most important processes and determinants for successful de-implementation of LVC, and to explore differences between de-implementation and implementation. In terms of practice and policy implications, the study underscores the relevance of addressing multiple levels when attempting to de-implement LVC.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Strehlenert, H, et al.
(författare)
-
Evidence-informed policy formulation and implementation : a comparative case study of two national policies for improving health and social care in Sweden
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Implementation Science. - : BioMed Central. - 1748-5908. ; 10:1, s. 169-179
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Evidence has come to play a central role in health policymaking. However, policymakers tend to use other types of information besides research evidence. Most prior studies on evidence-informed policy have focused on the policy formulation phase without a systematic analysis of its implementation. It has been suggested that in order to fully understand the policy process, the analysis should include both policy formulation and implementation. The purpose of the study was to explore and compare two policies aiming to improve health and social care in Sweden and to empirically test a new conceptual model for evidence-informed policy formulation and implementation.METHODS: Two concurrent national policies were studied during the entire policy process using a longitudinal, comparative case study approach. Data was collected through interviews, observations, and documents. A Conceptual Model for Evidence-Informed Policy Formulation and Implementation was developed based on prior frameworks for evidence-informed policymaking and policy dissemination and implementation. The conceptual model was used to organize and analyze the data.RESULTS: The policies differed regarding the use of evidence in the policy formulation and the extent to which the policy formulation and implementation phases overlapped. Similarities between the cases were an emphasis on capacity assessment, modified activities based on the assessment, and a highly active implementation approach relying on networks of stakeholders. The Conceptual Model for Evidence-Informed Policy Formulation and Implementation was empirically useful to organize the data.CONCLUSIONS: The policy actors' roles and functions were found to have a great influence on the choices of strategies and collaborators in all policy phases. The Conceptual Model for Evidence-Informed Policy Formulation and Implementation was found to be useful. However, it provided insufficient guidance for analyzing actors involved in the policy process, capacity-building strategies, and overlapping policy phases. A revised version of the model that includes these aspects is suggested.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
