Lyndsay A Nelson1,2, Sarah E Williamson3,4, Audriana Nigg3, William Martinez3. 1. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Ave. Suite 450, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA. lyndsay.a.nelson@vumc.org. 2. Center for Health Behavior and Health Education, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Ave. Suite 450, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA. lyndsay.a.nelson@vumc.org. 3. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Ave. Suite 450, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA. 4. Center for Health Behavior and Health Education, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Ave. Suite 450, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Evidence is growing for the positive effects of technology-delivered diabetes self-care interventions on behavioral and clinical outcomes. However, our understanding of how to effectively implement these interventions into routine clinical practice is limited. This article provides an overview of the methods and results of studies examining the implementation of technology-delivered diabetes self-care interventions into clinical care. We focus specifically on patient-facing behavioral interventions delivered with technology (e.g., text messaging, apps, websites). RECENT FINDINGS: Eleven articles were included in the review. Most studies (n = 9) examined barriers and facilitators to implementation, while about half (n = 5) integrated the intervention into clinical care and evaluated implementation and/or effectiveness. Only six studies applied a theory or framework. The most common determinants of implementation were time constraints for clinic staff, familiarity with technology, knowledge of the intervention, and perceived value. We found substantial variation in implementation outcomes, including which were reported, how they were assessed, and the results. In the four studies that evaluated effectiveness, hemoglobin A1c improved. Successful implementation of technology-delivered interventions has the potential to transform healthcare delivery and improve diabetes health on a population level. Promising strategies to address common determinants of implementation include appointing a clinic champion, developing staff training and educational materials, and adapting intervention processes to the clinic context. Future research should evaluate these implementation strategies to understand when and how they impact outcomes. Frameworks such as Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) can help ensure outcomes are systematically reported and allow for comparison across studies.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Evidence is growing for the positive effects of technology-delivered diabetes self-care interventions on behavioral and clinical outcomes. However, our understanding of how to effectively implement these interventions into routine clinical practice is limited. This article provides an overview of the methods and results of studies examining the implementation of technology-delivered diabetes self-care interventions into clinical care. We focus specifically on patient-facing behavioral interventions delivered with technology (e.g., text messaging, apps, websites). RECENT FINDINGS: Eleven articles were included in the review. Most studies (n = 9) examined barriers and facilitators to implementation, while about half (n = 5) integrated the intervention into clinical care and evaluated implementation and/or effectiveness. Only six studies applied a theory or framework. The most common determinants of implementation were time constraints for clinic staff, familiarity with technology, knowledge of the intervention, and perceived value. We found substantial variation in implementation outcomes, including which were reported, how they were assessed, and the results. In the four studies that evaluated effectiveness, hemoglobin A1c improved. Successful implementation of technology-delivered interventions has the potential to transform healthcare delivery and improve diabetes health on a population level. Promising strategies to address common determinants of implementation include appointing a clinic champion, developing staff training and educational materials, and adapting intervention processes to the clinic context. Future research should evaluate these implementation strategies to understand when and how they impact outcomes. Frameworks such as Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) can help ensure outcomes are systematically reported and allow for comparison across studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diabetes; Implementation; Interventions; Mobile health; Self-management; Technology
Authors: Kevin Patrick; Eric B Hekler; Deborah Estrin; David C Mohr; Heleen Riper; David Crane; Job Godino; William T Riley Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: C Hendricks Brown; Geoffrey Curran; Lawrence A Palinkas; Gregory A Aarons; Kenneth B Wells; Loretta Jones; Linda M Collins; Naihua Duan; Brian S Mittman; Andrea Wallace; Rachel G Tabak; Lori Ducharme; David A Chambers; Gila Neta; Tisha Wiley; John Landsverk; Ken Cheung; Gracelyn Cruden Journal: Annu Rev Public Health Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 21.981
Authors: Lyndsay A Nelson; Andrew Spieker; Robert Greevy; Lauren M LeStourgeon; Kenneth A Wallston; Lindsay S Mayberry Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Carl R May; Frances Mair; Tracy Finch; Anne MacFarlane; Christopher Dowrick; Shaun Treweek; Tim Rapley; Luciana Ballini; Bie Nio Ong; Anne Rogers; Elizabeth Murray; Glyn Elwyn; France Légaré; Jane Gunn; Victor M Montori Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-05-21 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Jamie Ross; Fiona Stevenson; Charlotte Dack; Kingshuk Pal; Carl May; Susan Michie; Maria Barnard; Elizabeth Murray Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-10-19 Impact factor: 2.655