Damschroder, Laura J.

Objective To identify primary care structures and processes that have the highest and lowest impact on chronic disease management and screening and prevention outcomes as well as to assess the feasibility of implementing these structures and processes into practice. Design A two-round Delphi study was conducted to establish consensus on the impact and feasibility of 258 primary care structures and processes. Participants 29 primary care providers, health system leaders and health services researchers in the USA. Outcomes Primary outcomes were (1) consensus on the impact of each structure and process on chronic disease management and screening and prevention outcomes, separately and (2) consensus on feasibility of implementation by primary care practices. Results Consensus on high impact and feasibility of implementation was reached on four items for chronic disease management: ‘Providers use motivational interviewing to help patients set goals’, ‘Practice has designated staff to manage patient panel’, ‘Practice has onsite providers or staff that speak the most dominant, non-English language spoken by patients’ and ‘Practice includes mental health providers and/or behavioural health specialists in care team’ and seven items for screening and prevention: ‘Practice utilizes standing protocols and orders’, ‘Practice generates reports to alert clinicians to missed targets and to identify gaps in care, such as overdue visits, needed vaccinations, screenings or other preventive services’, ‘Practice has designated staff to manage patient panel’, ‘Practice sets performance goals and uses benchmarking to track quality of care’, ‘Practice uses performance feedback to identify practice-specific areas of improvement’, ‘Practice builds quality improvement activities into practice operations’ and ‘Pre-visit planning data are reviewed during daily huddles’. Only ‘Practice has designated staff to manage patient panel’ appeared on both lists. Conclusion Findings suggest that practices need to focus on implementing mostly distinct, rather than common, structures and processes to optimise chronic disease and preventive care.

Background: Measurement is a critical component for any field. Systematic reviews are a way to locate measures and uncover gaps in current measurement practices. The present study identified measures used in behavioral health settings that assessed all constructs within the Process domain and two constructs from the Inner setting domain as defined by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). While previous conceptual work has established the importance social networks and key stakeholders play throughout the implementation process, measurement studies have not focused on investigating the quality of how these activities are being carried out. Methods: The review occurred in three phases: Phase I, data collection included (1) search string generation, (2) title and abstract screening, (3) full text review, (4) mapping to CFIR-constructs, and (5) “cited-by” searches. Phase II, data extraction, consisted of coding information relevant to the nine psychometric properties included in the Psychometric And Pragmatic Rating Scale (PAPERS). In Phase III, data analysis was completed. Results: Measures were identified in only seven constructs: Structural characteristics ( n = 13), Networks and communication ( n = 29), Engaging ( n = 1), Opinion leaders ( n = 5), Champions ( n = 5), Planning ( n = 5), and Reflecting and evaluating ( n = 5). No quantitative assessment measures of Formally appointed implementation leaders, External change agents, or Executing were identified. Internal consistency and norms were reported on most often, whereas no studies reported on discriminant validity or responsiveness. Not one measure in the sample reported all nine psychometric properties evaluated by the PAPERS. Scores in the identified sample of measures ranged from “-2” to “10” out of a total of “36.” Conclusions: Overall measures demonstrated minimal to adequate evidence and available psychometric information was limited. The majority were study specific, limiting their generalizability. Future work should focus on more rigorous measure development and testing of currently existing measures, while moving away from creating new, single use measures. Plain Language Summary: How we measure the processes and players involved for implementing evidence-based interventions is crucial to understanding what factors are helping or hurting the intervention’s use in practice and how to take the intervention to scale. Unfortunately, measures of these factors—stakeholders, their networks and communication, and their implementation activities—have received little attention. This study sought to identify and evaluate the quality of these types of measures. Our review focused on collecting measures used for identifying influential staff members, known as opinion leaders and champions, and investigating how they plan, execute, engage, and evaluate the hard work of implementation. Upon identifying these measures, we collected all published information about their uses to evaluate the quality of their evidence with respect to their ability to produce consistent results across items within each use (i.e., reliable) and if they assess what they are intending to measure (i.e., valid). Our searches located over 40 measures deployed in behavioral health settings for evaluation. We observed a dearth of evidence for reliability and validity and when evidence existed the quality was low. These findings tell us that more measurement work is needed to better understand how to optimize players and processes for the purposes of successful implementation.

BackgroundResearch involving incapacitated persons with dementia entails complex scientific, legal, and ethical issues, making traditional surveys of layperson views on the ethics of such research challenging. We therefore assessed the impact of democratic deliberation (DD), involving balanced, detailed education and peer deliberation, on the views of those responsible for persons with dementia.MethodsOne hundred and seventy‐eight community‐recruited caregivers or primary decision‐makers for persons with dementia were randomly assigned to either an all‐day DD session group or a control group. Educational materials used for the DD session were vetted for balance and accuracy by an interdisciplinary advisory panel. We assessed the acceptability of family‐surrogate consent for dementia research (“surrogate‐based research”) from a societal policy perspective as well as from the more personal perspectives of deciding for a loved one or for oneself (surrogate and self‐perspectives), assessed at baseline, immediately post‐DD session, and 1 month after DD date, for four research scenarios of varying risk‐benefit profiles.ResultsAt baseline, a majority in both the DD and control groups supported a policy of family consent for dementia research in all research scenarios. The support for a policy of family consent for surrogate‐based research increased in the DD group, but not in the control group. The change in the DD group was maintained 1 month later. In the DD group, there were transient changes in attitudes from surrogate or self‐perspectives. In the control group, there were no changes from baseline in attitude toward surrogate consent from any perspective.ConclusionsIntensive, balanced, and accurate education, along with peer deliberation provided by democratic deliberation, led to a sustained increase in support for a societal policy of family consent in dementia research among those responsible for dementia patients.