Search

Background: The implementation science literature acknowledges a need for engagement of key stakeholders when designing, delivering and evaluating implementation work. To date, the literature reports minimal or focused stakeholder engagement, where stakeholders are engaged in either barrier identification and/or barrier prioritisation. This paper begins to answer calls from the literature for the development of tools and guidance to support comprehensive stakeholder engagement in implementation research and practice. The paper describes the systematic development of the Implementation‐STakeholder Engagement Model (I‐STEM) in the context of an international, large‐scale empirical implementation study (ImpleMentAll) aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of a tailored implementation toolkit. The I‐STEM is a sensitising tool that defines key considerations and activities for undertaking stakeholder engagement activities across an implementation process. Methods: In‐depth, semistructured interviews and observations were conducted with implementers who were tailoring implementation strategies to integrate and embed internet‐based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) services in 12 routine mental health care organisations in nine countries in Europe and Australia. The analytical process was informed by principles of first‐ and third‐generation Grounded Theory, including constant comparative method. Results: We conducted 55 interviews and observed 19 implementation‐related activities (e.g., team meetings and technical support calls). The final outcome of our analysis is expressed in an initial version of the I‐STEM, consisting of five interrelated concepts: engagement objectives, stakeholder mapping, engagement approaches, engagement qualities and engagement outcomes. Engagement objectives are goals that implementers plan to achieve by working with stakeholders in the implementation process. Stakeholder mapping involves identifying a range of organisations, groups or people who may be instrumental in achieving the engagement objectives. Engagement approaches define the type of work that is undertaken with stakeholders to achieve the engagement objectives. Engagement qualities define the logistics of the engagement approach. Lastly, every engagement activity may result in a range of engagement outcomes. Conclusion: The I‐STEM represents potential avenues for substantial stakeholder engagement activity across key phases of an implementation process. It provides a conceptual model for the planning, delivery, evaluation and reporting of stakeholder engagement activities. The I‐STEM is nonprescriptive and highlights the importance of a flexible, iterative approach to stakeholder engagement. It is developmental and will require application and validation across a range of implementation activities. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient contribution to ImpleMentAll trial was facilitated by GAMIAN‐Europe at all stages—from grant development to dissemination. GAMIAN‐Europe brings together a wide variety of patient representation organisations (local, regional and national) from almost all European countries. GAMIAN‐Europe was involved in pilot testing the ItFits‐toolkit and provided their views on the various aspects, including stakeholder engagement. Patients were also represented in the external advisory board providing support and advice on the design, conduct and interpretation of the wider project, including the development of the ItFits‐toolkit. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03652883. Retrospectively registered on 29 August 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To test the hypothesis that higher seizure burden in Dravet syndrome is associated with increased comorbidities and lower quality of life (QoL) in a large cohort of patients with Dravet syndrome and their caregivers in Europe.Method: An extensive survey of caregivers of patients with Dravet syndrome on experiences of diagnosis, seizure burden, management, social and financial impact, and health services use was administered online in 10 languages.Results: The survey received 584 unique responses from caregivers of paediatric (83%) and adult (17%) patients with Dravet syndrome (aged <1-48y). Despite broadly following current treatment guidance, less than 10% of patients were seizure free in the previous 3 months. Nearly all (99.6%) patients aged 5 years or older experienced at least one or more motor, speech, learning, or behavioural impairment. High seizure frequency was related to more reports of emergency treatment, comorbidities, and a lower QoL (as measured by the standardized instrument EQ-5D-5L). If not diagnosed at the first instance, the majority (83%) of adults, but less than 20% of 6- to 11-year-olds were diagnosed after 4 or more years.Interpretation: Patients with Dravet syndrome with the highest current seizure frequency suffer from more comorbidities and have a lower QoL. Therefore, more effective antiepileptic treatments are needed.What This Paper Adds: The survey captured about 15% of all patients with Dravet syndrome in Europe. Less than 10% of patients had current seizure freedom. Patients with a high current seizure burden have more comorbidities and lower quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]