Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Implementing new practices requires changes in the behaviour of relevant actors, and this is facilitated by understanding of the determinants of current and desired behaviours. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was developed by a collaboration of behavioural scientists and implementation researchers who identified theories relevant to implementation and grouped constructs from these theories into domains. The collaboration aimed to provide a comprehensive, theory-informed approach to identify determinants of behaviour. The first version was published in 2005, and a subsequent version following a validation exercise was published in 2012. This guide offers practical guidance for those who wish to apply the TDF to assess implementation problems and support intervention design. It presents a brief rationale for using a theoretical approach to investigate and address implementation problems, summarises the TDF and its development, and describes how to apply the TDF to achieve implementation objectives. Examples from the implementation research literature are presented to illustrate relevant methods and practical considerations. Methods Researchers from Canada, the UK and Australia attended a 3-day meeting in December 2012 to build an international collaboration among researchers and decision-makers interested in the advancing use of the TDF. The participants were experienced in using the TDF to assess implementation problems, design interventions, and/or understand change processes. This guide is an output of the meeting and also draws on the authors’ collective experience. Examples from the implementation research literature judged by authors to be representative of specific applications of the TDF are included in this guide. Results We explain and illustrate methods, with a focus on qualitative approaches, for selecting and specifying target behaviours key to implementation, selecting the study design, deciding the sampling strategy, developing study materials, collecting and analysing data, and reporting findings of TDF-based studies. Areas for development include methods for triangulating data, e.g. from interviews, questionnaires and observation and methods for designing interventions based on TDF-based problem analysis. Conclusions We offer this guide to the implementation community to assist in the application of the TDF to achieve implementation objectives. Benefits of using the TDF include the provision of a theoretical basis for implementation studies, good coverage of potential reasons for slow diffusion of evidence into practice and a method for progressing from theory-based investigation to intervention.

Audit and feedback (A&F) is a commonly used quality improvement (QI) approach. A Cochrane review indicates that A&F is generally effective and leads to modest improvements in professional practice but with considerable variation in the observed effects. While we have some understanding of factors that enhance the effects of A&F, further research needs to explore when A&F is most likely to be effective and how to optimise it. To do this, we need to move away from two-arm trials of A&F compared with control in favour of head-to-head trials of different ways of providing A&F. This paper describes implementation laboratories involving collaborations between healthcare organisations providing A&F at scale, and researchers, to embed head-to-head trials into routine QI programmes. This can improve effectiveness while producing generalisable knowledge about how to optimise A&F. We also describe an international meta-laboratory that aims to maximise cross-laboratory learning and facilitate coordination of A&F research.

Care following transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke is variable and often leaves patients feeling abandoned and uncertain. We developed a theoretically-informed, multifaceted intervention which comprised nurse-led, structured follow-up at 4 weeks after TIA/minor stroke to identify and address patient needs. This study evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of both the intervention and procedures to inform a future randomised controlled trial. We conducted a multicentre, randomised feasibility study with mixed-methods process evaluation (ISRCTN registry reference: ISRCTN39864003). We collected patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 1, 12 and 24 weeks and clinical data at baseline and 24 weeks. The process evaluation comprised qualitative interviews with a sub-sample, feedback questionnaires, and observations of intervention delivery. We recruited 54 patients over 12 months, achieving 90% of the target sample size (n = 60). PROMs return rates were 94.4% (51/54), 85.2% (46/54) and 71.1% (27/38) at 1, 12, and 24-weeks, respectively. Intervention fidelity was high and the intervention largely aligned with the theoretical underpinnings. The process evaluation illustrated how patients benefitted from the intervention through support they would not have received through usual care. This included direct referral or signposting to support services, information and education, actionable advice, and reassurance about and normalisation of recovery. The trial design was feasible and acceptable for both patients and clinicians. Nurse-led, structured follow-up after TIA and minor stroke is feasible, acceptable and valued by patients and clinicians. Our intervention can identify and help address unmet needs. A definitive randomised trial to evaluate intervention effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is feasible and acceptable.

In England, Electronic Palliative Care Coordination Systems (EPaCCS) were introduced in 2008 to support care coordination and delivery in accordance with patient preferences. Despite policy supporting their implementation, there has been a lack of rigorous evaluation of EPaCCS and it is not clear how they have been translated into practice. This study sought to examine the current national implementation of EPaCCS, including their intended impact on patient and service outcomes, and barriers and facilitators for implementation. We conducted a national cross-sectional online survey of end-of-life care commissioning leads for Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England. We enquired about the current implementation status of EPaCCS, their role in information sharing and intended impact, and requested routine patient-level data relating to EPaCCS. Out of 135 CCGs, 85 (63.0%) responded, with 57 (67.1%) having operational EPaCCS. Use of EPaCCS were confined to healthcare providers with most systems (67%) not supporting information sharing with care homes and social care providers. Most systems (68%) sought to facilitate goal concordant care, although there was inconsonance between intended impacts and monitoring measures used. Common challenges to implementation included healthcare professionals' limited engagement. Only one-third of patients had an EPaCCS record at death with limited recording of patient preferences. Critical gaps exist in engagement with EPaCCS and their ability to facilitate information sharing across care providers. The limited alignment between stated goals of EPaCCS and their monitoring impedes efforts to understand which characteristics of systems can best support care delivery.

Palliative care aims to improve the quality of life for people with life-limiting illnesses. Advance care planning conversations that establish a patient's wishes and preferences for care are part of a person-centered approach. Internationally, electronic health record systems are digital interventions used to record and share patients' advance care plans across health care services and settings. They aim to provide tools that support electronic information sharing and care coordination. Within the United Kingdom, Electronic Palliative Care Coordination Systems (EPaCCS) are an example of this. Despite over a decade of policy promoting EPaCCS nationally, there has been limited implementation and consistently low levels of use by health professionals. The aim of this study is to explore the factors that influence the implementation of EPaCCS into routine clinical practice across different care services and settings in 2 major regions of England. A qualitative interview study design was used, guided by Normalization Process Theory (NPT). NPT explores factors affecting the implementation of complex interventions and consists of 4 primary components (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring). Health care and social care practitioners were purposively sampled based on their professional role and work setting. Individual web-based semistructured interviews were conducted. Data were analyzed using thematic framework analysis to explore issues which affected the implementation of EPaCCS across different settings at individual, team, organizational, and technical levels. Participants (N=52) representing a range of professional roles were recruited across 6 care settings (hospice, primary care, care home, hospital, ambulatory, and community). In total, 6 themes were developed which mapped onto the 4 primary components of NPT and represented the multilevel influences affecting implementation. At an individual level, these included (1) EPaCCS providing a clear and distinct way of working and (2) collective contributions and buy-in. At a team and organizational level, these included (3) embedding EPaCCS into everyday practice and (4) championing driving implementation. At a technical level, these included (5) electronic functionality, interoperability, and access. Breakdowns in implementation at different levels led to variations in (6) confidence and trust in EPaCCS in terms of record accuracy and availability of access. EPaCCS implementation is influenced by individual, organizational, and technical factors. Key challenges include problems with access alongside inconsistent use and engagement across care settings. EPaCCS, in their current format as digital advance care planning systems are not consistently facilitating electronic information sharing and care coordination. A redesign of EPaCCS is likely to be necessary to determine configurations for their optimal implementation across different settings and locations. This includes supporting health care practitioners to document, access, use, and share information across multiple care settings. Lessons learned are relevant to other forms of digital advance care planning approaches being developed internationally.

The rise in opioid prescribing in primary care represents a significant international public health challenge, associated with increased psychosocial problems, hospitalisations, and mortality. We evaluated the effects of a comparative feedback intervention with persuasive messaging and action planning on opioid prescribing in primary care. A quasi-experimental controlled interrupted time series analysis used anonymised, aggregated practice data from electronic health records and prescribing data from publicly available sources. The study included 316 intervention and 130 control primary care practices in the Yorkshire and Humber region, UK, serving 2.2 million and 1 million residents, respectively. We observed the number of adult patients prescribed opioid medication by practice between July 2013 and December 2017. We excluded adults with coded cancer or drug dependency. The intervention, the Campaign to Reduce Opioid Prescribing (CROP), entailed bimonthly, comparative, and practice-individualised feedback reports to practices, with persuasive messaging and suggested actions over 1 year. Outcomes comprised the number of adults per 1,000 adults per month prescribed any opioid (main outcome), prescribed strong opioids, prescribed opioids in high-risk groups, prescribed other analgesics, and referred to musculoskeletal services. The number of adults prescribed any opioid rose pre-intervention in both intervention and control practices, by 0.18 (95% CI 0.11, 0.25) and 0.36 (95% CI 0.27, 0.46) per 1,000 adults per month, respectively. During the intervention period, prescribing per 1,000 adults fell in intervention practices (change -0.11; 95% CI -0.30, -0.08) and continued rising in control practices (change 0.54; 95% CI 0.29, 0.78), with a difference of -0.65 per 1,000 patients (95% CI -0.96, -0.34), corresponding to 15,000 fewer patients prescribed opioids. These trends continued post-intervention, although at slower rates. Prescribing of strong opioids, total opioid prescriptions, and prescribing in high-risk patient groups also generally fell. Prescribing of other analgesics fell whilst musculoskeletal referrals did not rise. Effects were attenuated after feedback ceased. Study limitations include being limited to 1 region in the UK, possible coding errors in routine data, being unable to fully account for concurrent interventions, and uncertainties over how general practices actually used the feedback reports and whether reductions in prescribing were always clinically appropriate. Repeated comparative feedback offers a promising and relatively efficient population-level approach to reduce opioid prescribing in primary care, including prescribing of strong opioids and prescribing in high-risk patient groups. Such feedback may also prompt clinicians to reconsider prescribing other medicines associated with chronic pain, without causing a rise in referrals to musculoskeletal clinics. Feedback may need to be sustained for maximum effect.

In primary care, multiple priorities and system pressures make closing the gap between evidence and practice challenging. Most implementation studies focus on single conditions, limiting generalisability. We compared an adaptable implementation package against an implementation control and assessed effects on adherence to four different evidence-based quality indicators. We undertook two parallel, pragmatic cluster-randomised trials using balanced incomplete block designs in general practices in West Yorkshire, England. We used 'opt-out' recruitment, and we randomly assigned practices that did not opt out to an implementation package targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (Trial 1); or blood pressure (BP) control or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) (Trial 2). Within trials, each arm acted as the implementation control comparison for the other targeted indicator. For example, practices assigned to the diabetes control package acted as the comparison for practices assigned to the risky prescribing package. The implementation package embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach, and computerised support, with content tailored to each indicator. Respective patient-level primary endpoints at 11 months comprised the following: achievement of all recommended levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), BP, and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended BP; and anticoagulation prescribing. Between February and March 2015, we recruited 144 general practices collectively serving over 1 million patients. We stratified computer-generated randomisation by area, list size, and pre-intervention outcome achievement. In April 2015, we randomised 80 practices to Trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to Trial 2 (32 per arm). Practices and trial personnel were not blind to allocation. Two practices were lost to follow-up but provided some outcome data. We analysed the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, adjusted for potential confounders at patient level (sex, age) and practice level (list size, locality, pre-intervention achievement against primary outcomes, total quality scores, and levels of patient co-morbidity), and analysed cost-effectiveness. The implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.82; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1,359 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but there was insufficient evidence of effect on other primary endpoints (diabetes control OR 1.03, 97.5% CI 0.89-1.18, p = 0.693; BP control OR 1.05, 97.5% CI 0.96-1.16, p = 0.215; anticoagulation prescribing OR 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.75-1.09, p = 0.214). No statistically significant effects were observed in any secondary outcome except for reduced co-prescription of aspirin and clopidogrel without gastro-protection in patients aged 65 and over (adjusted OR 0.62; 97.5% CI 0.39-0.99; p = 0.021). Main study limitations concern our inability to make any inferences about the relative effects of individual intervention components, given the multifaceted nature of the implementation package, and that the composite endpoint for diabetes control may have been too challenging to achieve. In this study, we observed that a multifaceted implementation package was clinically and cost-effective for targeting prescribing behaviours within the control of clinicians but not for more complex behaviours that also required patient engagement. The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN91989345).

BackgroundThere are challenges to delivering high quality primary care within prison settings and well-recognised gaps between evidence and practice. There is a growing body of literature evaluating interventions to implement evidence-based practice in the general population, yet the extent and rigour of such evaluations in incarcerated populations are unknown. We therefore conducted a scoping literature review to identify and describe evaluations of implementation interventions in the prison setting.MethodsWe searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and grey literature up to August 2021, supplemented by hand searching. Search terms included prisons, evidence-based practice, and implementation science with relevant synonyms. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion. Data extraction included study populations, study design, outcomes, and author conclusions. We took a narrative approach to data synthesis. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance for scoping reviews.ResultsFifteen studies reported in 17 papers comprised one randomised controlled trial, one controlled interrupted time series analysis and 13 uncontrolled before and after studies. Eight studies took place in the US and four in the UK. Ten studies evaluated combined (multifaceted) interventions, typically including education for staff or patients. Interventions most commonly targeted communicable diseases, mental health and screening uptake. Thirteen studies reported adherence to processes of care, mainly testing, prescribing and referrals. Fourteen studies concluded that interventions had positive impacts.ConclusionsThere is a paucity of high-quality evidence to inform strategies to implement evidence-based health care in prisons, and an over-reliance on weak evaluation designs which may over-estimate effectiveness. Whilst most evaluations have focused on recognised priorities for the incarcerated population, relatively little attention has been paid to long-term conditions core to primary care delivery. Initiatives to close the gaps between evidence and practice in prison primary care need a stronger evidence base.

Background The early detection and diagnosis of cancer to reduce avoidable mortality and morbidity is a challenging task in primary health care. There is a growing evidence base on how to enable earlier cancer diagnosis, but well-recognised gaps and delays exist around the translation of new research findings into routine clinical practice. Implementation research aims to accelerate the uptake of evidence by health care systems and professionals. We aimed to identify priorities for implementation research in early cancer diagnosis in primary care. Methods We used a RAND/UCLA modified Delphi consensus process to identify and rank research priorities. We asked primary care physicians, patients and researchers to complete an online survey suggesting priorities for implementation research in cancer detection and diagnosis. We summarised and presented these suggestions to an 11-member consensus panel comprising nine primary care physicians and two patients. Panellists independently rated the importance of suggestions on a 1–9 scale (9 = very high priority; 1 = very low priority) before and after a structured group discussion. We ranked suggestions using median ratings. Results We received a total of 115 suggested priorities for implementation research from 32 survey respondents (including 16 primary care professionals, 11 researchers, and 4 patient and public representatives; 88% of respondents were UK-based). After removing duplicates and ineligible suggestions, we presented 37 suggestions grouped within 17 categories to the consensus panel. Following two rounds of rating, 27 suggestions were highly supported (median rating 7–9). The most highly rated suggestions concerned diagnostic support (e.g., access to imaging) interventions (e.g., professional or patient education), organisation of the delivery of care (e.g., communication within and between teams) and understanding variations in care and outcomes. Conclusions We have identified a set of priorities for implementation research on the early diagnosis of cancer, ranked in importance by primary care physicians and patients. We suggest that researchers and research funders consider these in directing further efforts and resources to improve population outcomes.