Search

Background: While processes of adoption and the impacts of various health technologies have been extensively studied by health services and policy researchers, the influence of policy makers' governing styles on these processes have been largely neglected. Through a comparative analysis of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec, this article examines how decisions about this technology were shaped by contrasting political ideologies, resulting in vastly different innovation and adoption strategies and outcomes. Methods: A comparative qualitative investigation comprising of a document analysis followed by semi-structured interviews with key informants. Interview participants were researchers, clinicians, and private sector medical laboratory employees based in Ontario and Quebec, Canada. Interviews were conducted both in person and virtually– owing partly to the COVID-19 pandemic – to garner perspectives regarding the adoption and innovation processes surrounding non-invasive prenatal testing in both provinces. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Through an analysis of 21 in-depth interview transcripts and key documents, the research team identified three central themes: 1) health officials in each province demonstrated a unique approach to using the existing scholarly literature on NIPT; 2) each provincial government demonstrated its own preference for service delivery, with Ontario preferring private and Quebec preferring public; and finally, 3) both Ontario and Quebec's strategies to NIPT adoption and innovation was contextualized within each province's unique financial positioning and concerns. These findings illustrate how both Quebec's nationalist focus and use of industrial policy and Ontario's 'New Public Management' style had implications for how this emerging healthcare technology was made available within each province's publicly-financed health system. Conclusions: Our study reveals how these governments' differing approaches to using data and research, public versus private service delivery, and financial goals and concerns resulted in distinct testing technologies, access, and timelines for NIPT adoption. Our analysis demonstrates the need for health policy researchers, policy makers, and others to move beyond analyses solely considering clinical and health economic evidence to understand the impact of political ideologies and governing styles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is general scarcity of research on key elements of implementation processes and the factors which impact implementation success. Implementation of healthcare interventions is a complex process. Tools to support implementation can facilitate this process and improve effectiveness of the interventions and clinical outcomes. Understanding the impact of implementation support tools is a critical aspect of this process. The objective of this study was to solicit knowledge and agreement from relevant implementation science and knowledge translation healthcare experts in order to develop a process model of key elements in the implementation process.Methods: A two round, modified Delphi study involving international experts in knowledge translation and implementation (researchers, scientists, professors, decision-makers) was conducted. Participants rated and commented on all aspects of the process model, including the organization, content, scope, and structure. Delphi questions rated at 75% agreement or lower were reviewed and revised. Qualitative comments supported the restructuring and refinement. A second-round survey followed the same process as Round 1.Results: Fifty-four experts participated in Round 1, and 32 experts participated in Round 2. Twelve percent (n = 6) of the Round 1 questions did not reach agreement. Key themes for revision and refinement were: stakeholder engagement throughout the process, iterative nature of the implementation process; importance of context; and importance of using guiding theories or frameworks. The process model was revised and refined based on the quantitative and qualitative data and reassessed by the experts in Round 2. Agreement was achieved on all items in Round 2 and the Delphi concluded. Additional feedback was obtained regarding terminology, target users and definition of the implementation process.Conclusions: High levels of agreement were attained for all sub-domains, elements, and sub-elements of the Implementation Process Model. This model will be used to develop an Implementation Support Tool to be used by healthcare providers to facilitate effective implementation and improved clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Reablement is a time-limited intervention that aims to support people to regain independence and enable them to resume their daily activities after they return home from an in-patient care setting, or to maintain independence to enable them to remain at home. There is some evidence that reablement can enhance independence and has the potential to contain costs. However, reablement services are funded and provided in different ways and by different organisations, and there is limited research evidence about the effectiveness of different reablement service models. This study will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different reablement service models and service users' and carers' experiences of reablement in England, UK.Methods/design: The study will use a quasi-experimental mixed methods design that comprises three work packages (WP) extending over a period of 34 months. WP1 will conduct cluster analysis on survey data to develop a typology of current models of reablement services in order to describe the current reablement service landscape. WP2 will comprise a quantitative outcomes evaluation of the effectiveness of the different service models; a process evaluation and an economic evaluation. WP2 will be set within generic reablement services, where providers are using the most commonly employed generic reablement service types identified in WP1; the primary outcome measure is health-related quality of life measured by the EQ-5D-5L. WP3 will provide evidence about specialist reablement services and how specialist approaches and practices are organised and delivered.Discussion: Managing demands on care services is, and will remain, a crucial factor for the UK National Health Service as the number of people with long-term conditions rise. There has been, and will continue to be, significant investment in reablement services. The proposed study will address several key areas where there is limited evidence regarding the organisation and delivery of reablement services in England, UK. Specifically, it will provide new evidence on different models of reablement services that will be of direct benefit to health and social care managers, commissioners and their partner organisations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Choosing Wisely (CW) is an international movement comprised of campaigns in more than 20 countries to reduce low-value care (LVC). De-implementation, the reduction or removal of a healthcare practice that offers little to no benefit or causes harm, is an emerging field of research. Little is known about the factors which (i) sustain LVC; and (ii) the magnitude of the problem of LVC. In addition, little is known about the processes of de-implementation, and if and how these processes differ from implementation endeavours. The objective of this study was to explicate the myriad factors which impact the processes and outcomes of de-implementation initiatives that are designed to address national Choosing Wisely campaign recommendations.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals implementing Choosing Wisely Canada recommendations in healthcare settings in four provinces. The interview guide was developed using concepts from the literature and the Implementation Process Model (IPM) as a framework. All interviews were conducted virtually, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.Findings: Seventeen Choosing Wisely team members were interviewed. Participants identified numerous provider factors, most notably habit, which sustain LVC. Contrary to reporting in recent studies, the majority of LVC in the sample was not 'patient facing'; therefore, patients were not a significant driver for the LVC, nor a barrier to reducing it. Participants detailed aspects of the magnitude of the problems of LVC, providing insight into the complexities and nuances of harm, resources and prevalence. Harm from potential or common infections, reactions, or overtreatment was viewed as the most significant types of harm. Unique factors influencing the processes of de-implementation reported were: influence of Choosing Wisely campaigns, availability of data, lack of targets and hard-coded interventions.Conclusions: This study explicates factors ranging from those which impact the maintenance of LVC to factors that impact the success of de-implementation interventions intended to reduce them. The findings draw attention to the significance of unintentional factors, highlight the importance of understanding the impact of harm and resources to reduce LVC and illuminate the overstated impact of patients in de-implementation literature. These findings illustrate the complexities of de-implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]