Figure - available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Background
In 2014, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adopted a screening test policy for hepatitis C virus (HCV) in all “Baby Boomers” - those born between 1945 and 1965. About 1 in 12 Veterans were estimated to be infected with HCV yet approximately 34% of the birth cohort remained untested. Early HCV diagnosis and successful antiviral trea...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... identified three themes related to primary care provider HCV testing and linkage practices, as mapped to i-PARIHS constructs: 1) evaluating cues to HCV testing (innovation/evidence), 2) framing HCV testing decisions (recipients), and 3) HCV testing and linkage to care in the new treatment era (context). These themes are presented in Table 2 and in further detail below. ...Citations
... Unfortunately, providers tend to recommend HCV screening on an individual, case-by-case basis rather than adopting universal screening consistently. (Yakovchenko et al., 2019). This study is informed by the Health Belief Model and the Competing Demands Model, both of which include constructs that are associated with provider-reported screening behaviors including self-efficacy and perceived barriers to screening (Kasting et al., 2020;Kasting et al., 2021;Jaén et al., 1994). ...
Providers’ recommendation is among the strongest predictors to patients engaging in preventive care. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare providers’ Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) screening recommendation quality between high-risk and average-risk patients to determine if providers are universally recommending HCV screening, regardless of risk behaviors. This cross-sectional survey of 284 Indiana providers in 2020 assessed provider characteristics, HCV screening recommendation practices (strength, presentation, frequency, timeliness), self-efficacy, and barriers to recommending HCV screening. T-test and Chi-square compared recommendation practices for high-risk and average-risk patients. Prevalence ratios were calculated for variables associated with HCV recommendation strength comparing high-risk and average-risk patients. Logistic regression analyses examined factors associated with HCV recommendation strength for high- and average-risk patients, with odds ratios. Compared to average-risk patients, high-risk patients received higher proportion of HCV recommendations that were strong (70.4 % v. 42.4 %), routine (61.9 % v. 55.6 %), frequent (37.7 % v. 28 %), and timely (74.2 % v. 54.9 %) (P-values < 0.001). Compared to average-risk patients, providers with high-risk patients had a lower percentage of giving a strong recommendation if they were nurse practitioner (PR = 0.49). For high-risk patients, providers with higher self-efficacy (aOR = 2.16;95 %CI = 0.99–4.69) had higher odds, while those with higher perceived barriers (aOR = 0.19;95 %CI = 0.09–0.39) and those with an internal medicine specialty compared to family medicine (aOR = 0.22;95 %CI = 0.08–0.57) had lower odds of giving a strong recommendation. These data suggest providers are not universally recommending HCV screening for all adults regardless of reported risk. Future research should translate these findings into multilevel interventions to improve HCV screening recommendations regardless of patient risk status.
... About more than 170 million individuals were actively carrying the virus as chronic carriers [26]. In the United states, HCV-infected the individuals that were born amid 1945 and 1965 were named "baby boomers" and they were more than 75% [27]. ...
... Our study suggests that monitoring and evaluation play a key role in EBI implementation. Hospitals regularly collected data for formal audit (as opposed to informal analysis under "clinical experience") and positive feedback from the audit acted as a driving force to promote further scale-up of KMC, and this is similar to the findings of others [28]. ...
Background
Evidence based interventions (EBIs) can improve patient care and outcomes. Understanding the process for successfully introducing and implementing EBIs can inform effective roll-out and scale up. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework can be used to evaluate and guide the introduction and implementation of EBIs. In this study, we used kangaroo mother care (KMC) as an example of an evidence-based neonatal intervention recently introduced in selected Chinese hospitals, to identify the factors that influenced its successful implementation. We also explored the utility of the PARIHS framework in China and investigated how important each of its constructs (evidence, context and facilitation) and sub-elements were perceived to be to successful implementation of EBIs in a Chinese setting.
Method
We conducted clinical observations and semi-structured interviews with 10 physicians and 18 nurses in five tertiary hospitals implementing KMC. Interview questions were organized around issues including knowledge and beliefs, resources, culture, implementation readiness and climate. We used directed content analysis to analyze the interview transcript, amending the PARIHS framework to incorporate emerging sub-themes. We also rated the constructs and sub-elements on a continuum from “low (weak)”, “moderate” or “high (strong)” highlighting the ones considered most influential for hospital level implementation by study participants.
Results
Using KMC as an example, our finding suggest that clinical experience, culture, leadership, evaluation, and facilitation are highly influential elements for EBI implementation in China. External evidence had a moderate impact, especially in the initial awareness raising stages of implementation and resources were also considered to be of moderate importance, although this may change as implementation progresses. Patient experience was not seen as a driver for implementation at hospital level.
Conclusion
Based on our findings examining KMC implementation as a case example, the PARIHS framework can be a useful tool for planning and evaluating EBI implementation in China. However, it’s sub-elements should be assessed and adapted to the implementation setting.
... Our study suggests that monitoring and evaluation play a key role in EBI implementation. Hospitals regularly collected data for formal audit (as opposed to informal analysis under "clinical experience") and positive feedback from the audit acted as a driving force to promote further scale-up of KMC, and this is similar to the ndings of others [24]. ...
Background
Evidence based interventions (EBIs) can improve patient care and outcomes. Understanding the process for successfully introducing and implementing EBIs can inform effective roll-out and scale up. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework can be used to evaluate and guide the introduction and implementation of EBIs. To gain an understanding of the utility of the PARIHS framework in China and investigate how important each of its constructs (evidence, context and facilitation) and sub-elements are perceived to be to successful implementation of EBIs in a Chinese setting, we used the framework to assess the implementation of an evidence-based neonatal intervention (kangaroo mother care, KMC) recently introduced in selected Chinese hospitals.
Method
We conducted clinical observations and semi-structured interviews with 10 physicians and 18 nurses in five tertiary hospitals implementing KMC. Interview questions were organized around issues including knowledge and beliefs, resources, culture, implementation readiness and climate. We used directed content analysis to analyze the interview transcript, amending the PARIHS framework to incorporate emerging sub-themes. We also rated the constructs and sub-elements on a continuum from “low (weak)”, “moderate” or “high (strong)” highlighting the ones considered most influential for hospital level implementation by study participants.
Results
Our finding suggest that clinical experience, culture, leadership, evaluation, and facilitation are highly influential sub-elements for EBI implementation in China. External evidence had a moderate impact, especially in the initial awareness raising stages of implementation and resources were also considered to be of moderate importance, although this may change as implementation progresses. Patient experience was not seen as a driver for implementation at hospital level.
Conclusion
The PHARIS framework can be a useful tool for planning and evaluating EBI implementation in China. However, it’s sub-elements should be assessed and adapted to the implementation setting.
... A final coding framework was agreed and re-evaluated to ensure the analysis was a true representation of the data; analysis then moved into the next phase as each subtheme was mapped to i-PARIHS constructs. The findings were then critically compared with previous studies that have either contributed to the formulation and development of i-PARIHS or been informed by i-PARIHS [33,40,41] to identify any differences or omissions which may suggest new theoretical insights. ...
Background
Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of pain and disability worldwide. Despite research supporting best practice, evidence-based guidelines are often not followed. Little is known about the implementation of non-surgical models of care in routine primary care practice. From a knowledge mobilisation perspective, the aim of this study was to understand the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis and explore the journey from a clinical trial to implementation.
Methods
This study used two methods: secondary analysis of focus groups undertaken with general practice staff from the Managing OSteoArthritis in ConsultationS research trial, which investigated the effectiveness of an enhanced osteoarthritis consultation, and interviews with stakeholders from an implementation project which started post-trial following demand from general practices. Data from three focus groups with 21 multi-disciplinary clinical professionals (5–8 participants per group), and 13 interviews with clinical and non-clinical stakeholders, were thematically analysed utilising the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework, in a theoretically informative approach. Public contributors were involved in topic guide design and interpretation of results.
Results
In operationalising implementation of an innovation for osteoarthritis following a trial, the importance of a whole practice approach, including the opportunity for reflection and planning, were identified. The end of a clinical trial provided opportune timing for facilitating implementation planning. In the context of osteoarthritis in primary care, facilitation by an inter-disciplinary knowledge brokering service, nested within an academic institution, was instrumental in supporting ongoing implementation by providing facilitation, infrastructure and resource to support the workload burden. ‘Instinctive facilitation’ may involve individuals who do not adopt formal brokering roles or fully recognise their role in mobilising knowledge for implementation. Public contributors and lay communities were not only recipients of healthcare innovations but also potential powerful facilitators of implementation.
Conclusion
This theoretically informed knowledge mobilisation study into the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis in primary care has enabled further characterisation of the facilitation and recipient constructs of i-PARIHS by describing optimum timing for facilitation and roles and characteristics of facilitators.
... 20 Design of this intervention was informed by our formative work on primary care provider perceptions towards updated HCV screening guidelines, which identified patient-, provider-, and system-level factors promoting or inhibiting implementation, including patient reluctance to accept testing, diverse provider opinions on the value of expanded testing, and inefficient clinical reminder tools and lab ordering protocols. 21 We anticipated that specific clinic experiences compounded barriers, and thus would require a multi-component Lean-Facilitation intervention (LFI) addressing intrapersonal (i.e., awareness, knowledge, motivation), interpersonal (i.e., enhancing communication skills), organizational (i.e., culture and climate), and structural (i.e., increasing access to phlebotomy) factors. We selected facilitation to drive the intervention and simultaneously incorporate both transformational (i.e., champion development) and transactional (i.e., audit and feedback) strategies, while attending to a dynamically changing context. ...
Background:
Lean management has been successfully employed in healthcare to improve outcomes and efficiencies. Facilitation is increasingly being used to support evidence-based practice uptake in healthcare. However, while both Lean and Facilitation are used in healthcare quality improvement, limited research has explored their integration and the sustainability of their combined effects.
Objective:
To improve hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening rates among persons born between 1945 and 1965 through the design and evaluation of a multi-modal Lean-Facilitation intervention (LFI) for Department of Veterans Affairs primary care community clinics.
Design:
We conducted a mixed methods quasi-experimental evaluation in eight clinics, guided by the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework.
Participants:
We engaged regional and local leadership (N = 9), implemented our LFI with clinicians and staff (N = 68), and conducted summative interviews with participants (N = 13).
Intervention:
The LFI included six implementation strategies: (1) external facilitation, (2) stakeholder engagement, (3) champion activation, (4) rapid process improvement sessions, (5) Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, and (6) audit-feedback.
Measures:
The primary outcome was rate of new HCV screening among previously untested patients with a primary care visit. Using interrupted time series, we analyzed intervention and time effects on HCV testing rates, and administered organizational readiness surveys, conducted summative qualitative interviews, and tracked facilitation events.
Results:
The LFI was associated with significant, immediate, and sustained increases in HCV testing. No change was detected at matched comparison clinics. Staff accepted the LFI and the philosophy of "bottom-up" solution development yet had mixed feedback on its appropriateness and feasibility. Enablers of implementation and early sustainment included lower satisfaction with baseline HCV testing processes and staff culture, while later sustainment was related to implementation climate support, measurement, and evaluation.
Conclusions:
High-reach and relatively low effort, but persistent intervention led to significant improvement in guideline-concordant HCV testing rates which were sustained.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02936648.
... Stetler et al., (2006) describe four stages of formative evaluation (FE): (1) developmental FE (pre-implementation interviews with identified implementation champions, providers, patients and family members), (2) implementation-focused FE (tracking attendance of specific implementation steps, such as at group meetings; use of predetermined implementation strategies by local champions; dashboards of patients' utilization of the evidence-based practice or innovation, or providers' delivery of it), (3) progress-focused FE (tracking rates of patients' health and process outcomes), and (4) interpretive FE (postimplementation surveys and interviews with implementation champions, providers, patients and family members). Studies may involve one or more of these stages (Stetler et al., 2006;Bokhour et al., 2015;Yakovchenko et al., 2019) or all four stages (Hagedorn et al., 2016). ...
... Such developmental FE data enable researchers to understand potential problems and, where possible, overcome them prior to initiation of interventions in study sites through identification and use of robust implementation strategies. In a developmental FE aimed at identifying and specifying implementation strategies to address primary care providers' reluctance of hepatitis C screening and testing, data from interviews with PCPs suggested a multi-component intervention around awareness and education, feedback of performance data, clinical reminder updates, and leadership support, would address both a significant clinical need, and be deemed acceptable and feasible to primary care providers (Yakovchenko et al., 2019). ...
Formative evaluation, a rigorous assessment process to identify potential and actual influences on the implementation process, is a necessary first step prior to launching any implementation effort. Without formative evaluation, intervention studies may fail to translate into meaningful patient care or public health outcomes or across different contexts. Formative evaluation usually consists of qualitative methods, but may involve quantitative or mixed methods. A unique aspect of formative evaluation is that data are shared with the implementation team during the study in order to adapt and improve the process of implementation during the course of the study or improvement activity. In implementation science, and specifically within formative evaluation, it is imperative that a theory or conceptual model or framework guide the selection of the various individual, organizational or contextual factors to be assessed. Data from these theory-based constructs can translate into the development and specification of implementation strategies to support the uptake of the intervention. In this article, we describe different types of formative evaluations (developmental, implementation-focused, progress-focused, and interpretive), and then present a formative evaluation case study from a real-world implementation study within several academic pain clinics, guided by the Theory of Diffusion of Innovation.
Background:
Several tests have been developed to screen VNT in different screening settings. We aimed to develop simple estimators to quantify VNT risk and spare endoscopy while missing <5% of VNT, adapted to different screenings in the main etiologies.
Methods:
2,368 patients with chronic liver disease were included. The main VNT predictors were platelets, prothrombin index (PI) and LSM. Their interactions led to score construction, LIP: (LSM*45)/(PI*platelets), and BLIP: BMI-adjusted LIP in NAFLD. Scores were categorized either for population (VNT sensitivity ≥95%) or individual (negative predictive value ≥95%) VNT screening.
Results:
1) Scores diagnosing VNT. AUROCs were, PLER: 0.767 Anticipate: 0.773 (p=0.059 vs previous), LIP: 0.779 (p=0.136), PLEASE: 0.789 (p=0.196). 2) Population screening performance was in increasing order (with missed VNT rate), Baveno6 criteria: 23.9% (2.5%), Anticipate 24.5%, p=0.367 vs previous (3.3%), PLER 27.3%, p<0.001 (3.6%), LIP 33.4%, p<0.001 (4.2%), PLEASE 35.2%, p=0.006 (3.6%). In NAFLD, LIP 38.6%, BLIP 40.8%, p=0.038. 3) Individual screening performance was, expanded Baveno6 criteria: 42.7%, LIP 54.1%, p<0.001. In NAFLD, performance was, NAFLD-cirrhosis criteria: 66.7%, BLIP 74.6%, p<0.001.
Conclusion:
LIP combined simplicity, performance and safety in each etiology. In NAFLD, BMI-adjusted LIP outperformed other tests.
Background and Aims
We aimed to improve non-invasive screening of varices needing treatment (VNT) and compare different screening strategies.
Methods
2,290 patients with chronic liver disease were included in a retrospective study. Etiologies were: virus: 50.0%, NAFLD: 29.5%, alcohol: 20.5%, VNT: 14.9%. Test descriptors were performance (spared endoscopy) and safety (missed VNT). VNT tests were evaluated according to their safety levels either for individual screening (95% negative predictive value (NPV)), population screening (95% sensitivity) or undifferentiated screening (100% sensitivity/NPV) without missed VNT. The tests provided three categories: missed VNT <5%, VNT 100% specificity (new category), both sparing endoscopies, and intermediate (endoscopy required).
Results
Independent VNT predictors (etiology, sex, age, platelets, prothrombin index, albumin, ALT, liver stiffness) were included in two tests: VNT virus alcohol NAFLD test (VANT) and varice risk score (VARS). We report results of the whole population. Considering population screening, performances were, Baveno VI criteria: 24.1%, Anticipate: 24.7%, VariScreen: 35.3%, VANT: 40.2% (p<0.001 vs other tests). VANT spared 58.0% more endoscopies in the whole population than Baveno criteria in compensated advanced chronic liver diseases. Considering individual screening, VARS performance was, in all patients: 62.0% vs 42.9% for the expanded Baveno VI criteria (p<0.001), and, in NAFLD: 72.8% vs 65.1% for the NAFLD cirrhosis criteria (p<0.001). Considering undifferentiated screening, VARS performance was 12%. The VARS score estimated VNT probability from 0 to 100% (AUROC: 0.826).
Conclusion
VANT and VARS spared from 12% (undifferentiated screening) to 40% (population screening) or 62% (individual screening) of endoscopies in main-etiology patients without ascites.
Background:
Widespread screening and treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) is required to decrease late-stage liver disease and liver cancer. Clinical practice guidelines and Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care recommendations differ on the value of one-time birth cohort (1945-75) HCV screening in Canada. To assess the utility of this approach, we conducted a real-world analysis of HCV antibody (Ab) prevalence among birth cohort individuals seen in different clinical contexts.
Methods:
Cross-sectional study of individuals born between 1945 and 1975 who completed HCV Ab testing at multiple participating centres in Ontario, Canada between January 2016 and December 2020. Differences in prevalence were compared by year of birth, gender, and setting.
Results:
Among 16,672 birth cohort individuals tested, HCV Ab prevalence was 3.2%. Prevalence was higher among younger individuals which increased from 0.9% among those born between 1945 and 1956 to 4.6% among those born between 1966 and 1975. Prevalence was higher among males (4.4%) compared with females (2.0%) and differed by test site. In primary care, the prevalence was 0.5%, whereas the prevalence was highest among those tested at drug treatment centres (28.7%) and through community outreach (14.0%).
Conclusions:
HCV Ab prevalence remains high in the 1945-1975 birth cohort. These data highlight the need to re-evaluate existing Canadian Preventative Task Force recommendations, to consider incorporating one-time birth cohort and/or other population-based approaches to HCV screening into the clinical workflow as a preventative health measure, and to increase training among community providers to screen for and treat HCV.
