A principal components analysis of factors associated with successful implementation of an LVAD decision support tool.
Decision support intervention
Facilitators and barriers
Implementation success
Principal components analysis
Journal
BMC medical informatics and decision making
ISSN: 1472-6947
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088682
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 03 2021
20 03 2021
Historique:
received:
09
11
2020
accepted:
10
03
2021
entrez:
21
3
2021
pubmed:
22
3
2021
medline:
24
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A central goal among researchers and policy makers seeking to implement clinical interventions is to identify key facilitators and barriers that contribute to implementation success. Despite calls from a number of scholars, empirical insights into the complex structural and cultural predictors of why decision aids (DAs) become routinely embedded in health care settings remains limited and highly variable across implementation contexts. We examined associations between "reach", a widely used indicator (from the RE-AIM model) of implementation success, and multi-level site characteristics of nine LVAD clinics engaged over 18 months in implementation and dissemination of a decision aid for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) treatment. Based on data collected from nurse coordinators, we explored factors at the level of the organization (e.g. patient volume), patient population (e.g. health literacy; average sickness level), clinician characteristics (e.g. attitudes towards decision aid; readiness for change) and process (how the aid was administered). We generated descriptive statistics for each site and calculated zero-order correlations (Pearson's r) between all multi-level site variables including cumulative reach at 12 months and 18 months for all sites. We used principal components analysis (PCA) to examine any latent factors governing relationships between and among all site characteristics, including reach. We observed strongest inclines in reach of our decision aid across the first year, with uptake fluctuating over the second year. Average reach across sites was 63% (s.d. = 19.56) at 12 months and 66% (s.d. = 19.39) at 18 months. Our PCA revealed that site characteristics positively associated with reach on two distinct dimensions, including a first dimension reflecting greater organizational infrastructure and standardization (characteristic of larger, more established clinics) and a second dimension reflecting positive attitudinal orientations, specifically, openness and capacity to give and receive decision support among coordinators and patients. Successful implementation plans should incorporate specific efforts to promote supportive and mutually informative interactions between clinical staff members and to institute systematic and standardized protocols to enhance the availability, convenience and salience of intervention tool in routine practice. Further research is needed to understand whether "core predictors" of success vary across different intervention types.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A central goal among researchers and policy makers seeking to implement clinical interventions is to identify key facilitators and barriers that contribute to implementation success. Despite calls from a number of scholars, empirical insights into the complex structural and cultural predictors of why decision aids (DAs) become routinely embedded in health care settings remains limited and highly variable across implementation contexts.
METHODS
We examined associations between "reach", a widely used indicator (from the RE-AIM model) of implementation success, and multi-level site characteristics of nine LVAD clinics engaged over 18 months in implementation and dissemination of a decision aid for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) treatment. Based on data collected from nurse coordinators, we explored factors at the level of the organization (e.g. patient volume), patient population (e.g. health literacy; average sickness level), clinician characteristics (e.g. attitudes towards decision aid; readiness for change) and process (how the aid was administered). We generated descriptive statistics for each site and calculated zero-order correlations (Pearson's r) between all multi-level site variables including cumulative reach at 12 months and 18 months for all sites. We used principal components analysis (PCA) to examine any latent factors governing relationships between and among all site characteristics, including reach.
RESULTS
We observed strongest inclines in reach of our decision aid across the first year, with uptake fluctuating over the second year. Average reach across sites was 63% (s.d. = 19.56) at 12 months and 66% (s.d. = 19.39) at 18 months. Our PCA revealed that site characteristics positively associated with reach on two distinct dimensions, including a first dimension reflecting greater organizational infrastructure and standardization (characteristic of larger, more established clinics) and a second dimension reflecting positive attitudinal orientations, specifically, openness and capacity to give and receive decision support among coordinators and patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Successful implementation plans should incorporate specific efforts to promote supportive and mutually informative interactions between clinical staff members and to institute systematic and standardized protocols to enhance the availability, convenience and salience of intervention tool in routine practice. Further research is needed to understand whether "core predictors" of success vary across different intervention types.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33743685
doi: 10.1186/s12911-021-01468-z
pii: 10.1186/s12911-021-01468-z
pmc: PMC7980808
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
106Références
Implement Sci. 2012 Jun 09;7:53
pubmed: 22682656
Health Res Policy Syst. 2015 Mar 14;13:16
pubmed: 25885055
Implement Sci. 2015 Aug 07;10:109
pubmed: 26249843
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2016 Jun;35(6):768-76
pubmed: 26922278
J Card Fail. 2018 Oct;24(10):661-671
pubmed: 30195826
Patient Educ Couns. 2011 May;83(2):234-9
pubmed: 20696543
Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):526-35
pubmed: 18752915
Med Decis Making. 2013 Jan;33(1):85-97
pubmed: 23300204
J Asthma. 2018 Mar;55(3):310-317
pubmed: 28548896
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015 Sep;34(9):1182-9
pubmed: 26087668
J Med Syst. 2012 Feb;36(1):241-77
pubmed: 20703721
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 12;4:CD001431
pubmed: 28402085
Implement Sci. 2013 Feb 17;8:22
pubmed: 23414420
MDM Policy Pract. 2020 Apr 26;5(1):2381468320915906
pubmed: 32440570
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Apr;35(4):630-6
pubmed: 27044963
N C Med J. 2009 Mar-Apr;70(2):136-9
pubmed: 19489371
Implement Sci. 2007 Dec 20;2:44
pubmed: 18096040
BMJ. 2017 Nov 6;359:j4891
pubmed: 29109079
J Comp Eff Res. 2016 Jul;5(4):407-15
pubmed: 27298206
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 Suppl 2:S14
pubmed: 24625083
Health Informatics J. 2020 Jun;26(2):1194-1207
pubmed: 31566466
Med Decis Making. 2019 Oct;39(7):805-815
pubmed: 31423911
Implement Sci. 2018 Mar 9;13(1):40
pubmed: 29523167
Health Expect. 2014 Jun;17(3):353-64
pubmed: 22212453
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
Implement Sci. 2016 Jul 16;11:94
pubmed: 27422011
Health Expect. 2000 Sep;3(3):182-191
pubmed: 11281928
Implement Sci. 2014 Jan 10;9:7
pubmed: 24410955
Implement Sci. 2017 Jun 21;12(1):77
pubmed: 28637486
Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Nov;85(2):219-24
pubmed: 21282030
Am J Public Health. 1999 Sep;89(9):1322-7
pubmed: 10474547
Implement Sci. 2015 Feb 07;10:17
pubmed: 25757139
Med Decis Making. 2015 Nov;35(8):987-98
pubmed: 26314727
Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2017 Jun 5;15(1):48
pubmed: 28583183
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Aug 18;17(1):124
pubmed: 28821256
Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581-629
pubmed: 15595944
Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 23;6:42
pubmed: 21513547
Health Expect. 2011 Mar;14 Suppl 1:85-95
pubmed: 21323821
J Cancer Educ. 2020 Dec;35(6):1141-1148
pubmed: 31278659
Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 24;7:37
pubmed: 22530986