Search

Purpose: Practice facilitation is an evidence-informed implementation strategy to support quality improvement (QI) and aid practices in aligning with best evidence. Few studies, particularly of this size and scope, identify strategies that contribute to facilitator effectiveness.Methods: We conducted a sequential mixed methods study, analyzing data from EvidenceNOW, a large-scale QI initiative. Seven regional cooperatives employed 162 facilitators to work with 1,630 small or medium-sized primary care practices. Main analyses were based on facilitators who worked with at least 4 practices. Facilitators were defined as more effective if at least 75% of their practices improved on at least 1 outcome measure-aspirin use, blood pressure control, smoking cessation counseling (ABS), or practice change capacity, measured using Change Process Capability Questionnaire-from baseline to follow-up. Facilitators were defined as less effective if less than 50% of their practices improved on these outcomes. Using an immersion crystallization and comparative approach, we analyzed observational and interview data to identify strategies associated with more effective facilitators.Results: Practices working with more effective facilitators had a 3.6% greater change in the mean percentage of patients meeting the composite ABS measure compared with practices working with less effective facilitators (P <.001). More effective facilitators cultivated motivation by tailoring QI work and addressing resistance, guided practices to think critically, and provided accountability to support change, using these strategies in combination. They were able to describe their work in detail. In contrast, less effective facilitators seldom used these strategies and described their work in general terms. Facilitator background, experience, and work on documentation did not differentiate between more and less effective facilitators.Conclusions: Facilitation strategies that differentiate more and less effective facilitators have implications for enhancing facilitator development and training, and can assist all facilitators to more effectively support practice changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The use of implementation strategies is an active and purposive approach to translate research findings into routine clinical care. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) identified and defined discrete implementation strategies, and Proctor and colleagues have made recommendations for specifying operationalization of each strategy. We use empirical data to test how the ERIC taxonomy applies to a large dissemination and implementation initiative aimed at taking cardiac prevention to scale in primary care practice. Methods EvidenceNOW is an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality initiative that funded seven cooperatives across seven regions in the USA. Cooperatives implemented multi-component interventions to improve heart health and build quality improvement capacity, and used a range of implementation strategies to foster practice change. We used ERIC to identify cooperatives’ implementation strategies and specified the actor, action, target, dose, temporality, justification, and expected outcome for each. We mapped and compiled a matrix of the specified ERIC strategies across the cooperatives, and used consensus to resolve mapping differences. We then grouped implementation strategies by outcomes and justifications, which led to insights regarding the use of and linkages between ERIC strategies in real-world scale-up efforts. Results Thirty-three ERIC strategies were used by cooperatives. We identified a range of revisions to the ERIC taxonomy to improve the practical application of these strategies. These proposed changes include revisions to four strategy names and 12 definitions. We suggest adding three new strategies because they encapsulate distinct actions that were not described in the existing ERIC taxonomy. In addition, we organized ERIC implementation strategies into four functional groupings based on the way we observed them being applied in practice. These groupings show how ERIC strategies are, out of necessity, interconnected, to achieve the work involved in rapidly taking evidence to scale. Conclusions Findings of our work suggest revisions to the ERIC implementation strategies to reflect their utilization in real-work dissemination and implementation efforts. The functional groupings of the ERIC implementation strategies that emerged from on-the-ground implementers will help guide others in choosing among and linking multiple implementation strategies when planning small- and large-scale implementation efforts. Trial registration Registered as Observational Study at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02560428).

Introduction: In 2017, the Aurum Institute, with support from Unitaid, launched an initiative to expand short‐course therapy for the prevention of tuberculosis (TB) in 12 high‐burden countries. This study aimed to investigate the importance of "catalytic" effects beyond the original project timeframe when estimating cost‐effectiveness of such large investments. Methods: We estimated the cost‐effectiveness of the IMPAACT4TB (I4TB) initiative from a health system perspective, using a 10‐year time horizon. We first conservatively estimated costs using a "top‐down" approach considering only the direct health benefits of providing TB preventive therapy to people initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) through I4TB activities. We then re‐estimated the incremental cost‐effectiveness of I4TB incorporating the costs and health benefits of potential catalytic effects beyond the program itself. Results: We estimated that TB preventive therapy through the I4TB initiative alone would prevent 14 201 cases of active TB and 1562 TB deaths over 10 years with an up‐front investment of $52.5 million; the estimated incremental cost‐effectiveness was $1580 per disability‐adjusted life year (DALY) averted. If this initiative could achieve its desired catalytic effects, an additional 375 648 cases and 41 321 deaths could be averted, at an incremental cost of $546 million and cost‐effectiveness of $713 per DALY averted. Conclusions: Our findings provide donors with reasonable evidence of value for money to support investment in short‐course TB preventive therapy for people initiating ART in high‐burden settings. Our study also illustrates the importance of considering long‐term secondary ("catalytic") effects when evaluating the cost‐effectiveness of large‐scale initiatives designed to change a global policy landscape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]