Literature DB >> 33573600

Fidelity evaluation of the compared procedures for conducting the PVS-PREDIAPS implementation strategy to optimize diabetes prevention in primary care.

Alvaro Sánchez1, Heather L Rogers2, Susana Pablo3, Esther García4, Inmaculada Rodríguez5, Mª Antonia Flores6, Olga Galarza7, Ana B Gaztañaga8, Pedro A Martínez9, Eider Alberdi10, Elena Resines11, Ana I Llarena12, Gonzalo Grandes3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Assessing the fidelity of an implementation strategy is important to understand why and how the strategy influences the uptake of evidence-based interventions. The present study aims to assess the fidelity of the two procedures for engaging primary care (PC) professionals and for the deployment of an implementation strategy for optimizing type 2 diabetes prevention in routine PC within the PREDIAPS randomized cluster implementation trial.
METHOD: We conducted a mixed-method fidelity evaluation study of the PVS-PREDIAPS implementation strategy. Nine PC centers from the Basque Health Service (Osakidetza) were allocated to two different procedures to engage physicians and nurses and deploy a implementation strategy to model and adapt the clinical intervention and its implementation to their specific contexts: a Global procedure, promoting the cooperation of all healthcare professionals from the beginning; or a Sequential procedure, centered first on nurses who then pursued the pragmatic cooperation of physicians. Process indicators of the delivery and receipt of implementation strategy actions, documented modifications to the planned implementation strategy, and a structured group interview with centers' leaders were all used to assess the following components of fidelity: adherence, dose, quality of delivery, professionals' responsiveness and program differentiation.
RESULTS: Generally, the procedures compared for professionals engagement and deployment of the implementation strategy were carried out with the planned differentiation. Nonetheless, some unexpected between-group differences were observed, the initial rate of collaboration of nurses being higher in the Sequential (93%) than in the Global (67%) groups. Exposure rate to the programed implementation actions (% of hours received out of those delivered) were similar in both groups by professional category, with nurses (86%) having a higher rate of exposure than physicians (75%). Professionals identified half of the planned discrete strategies and their rating of strategies' perceived usefulness was overwhelmingly positive, with few differences between Sequential and Global centers.
CONCLUSIONS: The PVS-PREDIAPS implementation strategy has been implemented with high fidelity and minor unplanned reactive modifications. Professionals' exposure to the implementation strategy was high in both groups. The centers' organizational context (i.e., work overload) led to small mismatches between groups in participation and exposure of professionals to implementation actions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03254979 . Registered 16 August 2017.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diabetes prevention; Fidelity; Implementation strategy; Primary healthcare

Year:  2021        PMID: 33573600      PMCID: PMC7879624          DOI: 10.1186/s12875-021-01378-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Fam Pract        ISSN: 1471-2296            Impact factor:   2.497


  25 in total

Review 1.  A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings.

Authors:  Linda Dusenbury; Rosalind Brannigan; Mathea Falco; William B Hansen
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2003-04

2.  Why don't we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition.

Authors:  Russell E Glasgow; Edward Lichtenstein; Alfred C Marcus
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Physician perspectives on a tailored multifaceted primary care practice facilitation intervention for improvement of cardiovascular care.

Authors:  Clare Liddy; Jatinderpreet Singh; Merry Guo; William Hogg
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2015-12-06       Impact factor: 2.267

Review 4.  Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: a how-to guide.

Authors:  Ruth P Saunders; Martin H Evans; Praphul Joshi
Journal:  Health Promot Pract       Date:  2005-04

5.  [Constructing a deprivation index based on census data in large Spanish cities(the MEDEA project)].

Authors:  M Felícitas Domínguez-Berjón; Carme Borrell; Gemma Cano-Serral; Santiago Esnaola; Andreu Nolasco; M Isabel Pasarín; Rebeca Ramis; Carme Saurina; Antonio Escolar-Pujolar
Journal:  Gac Sanit       Date:  2008 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.139

Review 6.  Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: are implementation effects out of control?

Authors:  A V Dane; B H Schneider
Journal:  Clin Psychol Rev       Date:  1998-01

7.  Examining implementer fidelity: Conceptualizing and measuring adherence and competence.

Authors:  Wendi F Cross; Jennifer C West
Journal:  J Child Serv       Date:  2011

8.  A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity.

Authors:  Christopher Carroll; Malcolm Patterson; Stephen Wood; Andrew Booth; Jo Rick; Shashi Balain
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2007-11-30       Impact factor: 7.327

9.  Type-2 diabetes primary prevention program implemented in routine primary care: a process evaluation study.

Authors:  Alvaro Sánchez; Carmen Silvestre; Natalia Campo; Gonzalo Grandes
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2016-05-20       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Engaging primary care professionals in collaborative processes for optimising type 2 diabetes prevention practice: the PREDIAPS cluster randomised type II hybrid implementation trial.

Authors:  Alvaro Sanchez; Gonzalo Grandes; Susana Pablo; Maite Espinosa; Artemis Torres; Arturo García-Alvarez
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2018-07-11       Impact factor: 7.327

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.