Understanding how context and culture in six communities can shape implementation of a complex intervention: a comparative case study

Jessica Gaber, Julie Datta, Rebecca Clark, Larkin Lamarche, Fiona Parascandalo, Stephanie Di Pelino, Pamela Forsyth, Doug Oliver, Dee Mangin, David Price, Jessica Gaber, Julie Datta, Rebecca Clark, Larkin Lamarche, Fiona Parascandalo, Stephanie Di Pelino, Pamela Forsyth, Doug Oliver, Dee Mangin, David Price

Abstract

Background: Contextual factors can act as barriers or facilitators to scaling-up health care interventions, but there is limited understanding of how context and local culture can lead to differences in implementation of complex interventions with multiple stakeholder groups. This study aimed to explore and describe the nature of and differences between communities implementing Health TAPESTRY, a complex primary care intervention aiming to keep older adults healthier in their homes for longer, as it was scaled beyond its initial effectiveness trial.

Methods: We conducted a comparative case study with six communities in Ontario, Canada implementing Health TAPESTRY. We focused on differences between three key elements: interprofessional primary care teams, volunteer program coordination, and the client experience. Sources of data included semi-structured focus groups and interviews. Data were analyzed through the steps of thematic analysis. We then created matrices in NVivo by splitting the qualitative data by community and comparing across the key elements of the Health TAPESTRY intervention.

Results: Overall 135 people participated (39 clients, 8 clinical managers, 59 health providers, 6 volunteer coordinators, and 23 volunteers). The six communities had differences in size and composition of both their primary care practices and communities, and how the volunteer program and Health TAPESTRY were implemented. Distinctions between communities relating to the work of the interprofessional teams included characteristics of the huddle lead, involvement of physicians and the volunteer coordinator, and clarity of providers' role with Health TAPESTRY. Key differences between communities relating to volunteer program coordination included the relationship between the volunteers and primary care practices, volunteer coordinator characteristics, volunteer training, and connections with the community. Differences regarding the client experience between communities included differing approaches used in implementation, such as recruitment methods.

Conclusions: Although all six communities had the same key program elements, implementation differed community-by-community. Key aspects that seemed to lead to differences across categories included the size and spread of communities, size of primary care practices, and linkages between program elements. We suggest future programs engaging stakeholders from the beginning and provide clear roles; target the most appropriate clients; and consider the size of communities and practices in implementation.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03397836 .

Keywords: Case study; Interprofessional health care teams; Primary care; Qualitative research; Volunteers.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

© 2022. The Author(s).

References

    1. Milat AJ, Newson R, King L, Rissel C, Wolfenden L, Bauman A, Redman A, Giffin M. A guide to scaling up population health interventions. Public Health Res Pract. 2016;26(1):e2611604. doi: 10.17061/phrp2611604.
    1. Milat AJ, King L, Bauman AE, Redman S. The concept of scalability: increasing the scale and potential adoption of health promotion interventions into policy and practice. Health Promot Int. 2013;28(3):285–298. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dar097.
    1. Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14(1):26–33. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2004.011155.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581–629. doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x.
    1. Mangin D, Lamarche L, Oliver D, Bomze S, Borhan S, Browne T, et al. Health TAPESTRY Ontario: protocol for a randomized controlled trial to test reproducibility and implementation. Trials. 2020;21(1):714. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04600-y.
    1. Dolovich L, Oliver D, Lamarche L, Thabane L, Valaitis R, Agarwal G, et al. Combining volunteers and primary care teamwork to support health goals and needs of older adults: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Can Med Assoc J. 2019;191(18):E491. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.181173.
    1. Brown JB, Mulder C, Clark RE, Belsito L, Thorpe C. It starts with a strong foundation: constructing collaborative interprofessional teams in primary health care. J Interprof Care. 2020;35(4):514-520.
    1. Szafran O, Torti JMI, Kennett SL, Bell NR. Family physicians' perspectives on interprofessional teamwork: findings from a qualitative study. J Interprof Care. 2018;32(2):169–177. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2017.1395828.
    1. Valaitis R, Cleghorn L, Dolovich L, Agarwal G, Gaber J, Mangin D, et al. Examining Interprofessional teams structures and processes in the implementation of a primary care intervention (health TAPESTRY) for older adults using normalization process theory. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s12875-020-01131-y.
    1. Supper I, Catala O, Lustman M, Chemla C, Bourgueil Y, Letrilliart L. Interprofessional collaboration in primary health care: a review of facilitators and barriers perceived by involved actors. J Public Health (Oxf) 2015;37(4):716–727.
    1. O'Reilly P, Lee SH, O'Sullivan M, Cullen W, Kennedy C, MacFarlane A. Assessing the facilitators and barriers of interdisciplinary team working in primary care using normalisation process theory: an integrative review. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0177026. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177026.
    1. Tang F, Morrow-Howell N, Choi E. Why do older adult volunteers stop volunteering? Ageing Soc. 2010;30(5):859–878. doi: 10.1017/S0144686X10000140.
    1. Hurst A, Coyne E, Kellett U, Needham J. Volunteers motivations and involvement in dementia care in hospitals, aged care and resident homes: an integrative review. Geriatr Nurs. 2019;40(5):478–486. doi: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2019.03.010.
    1. Gaber J, Oliver D, Valaitis R, Cleghorn L, Lamarche L, Avilla E, et al. Experiences of integrating community volunteers as extensions of the primary care team to help support older adults at home: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s12875-020-01165-2.
    1. Walk M, Zhang R, Littlepage L. “Don't you want to stay?” The impact of training and recognition as human resource practices on volunteer turnover. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 2019;29(4):509–527. doi: 10.1002/nml.21344.
    1. Chevrier F, Steuer R, MacKenzie J. Factors affecting satisfaction among community-based hospice volunteer visitors. Am J Hosp Palliat Med. 1994;11(4):30–37. doi: 10.1177/104990919401100411.
    1. Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):89. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89.
    1. Ploeg J, Valaitis RK, Cleghorn L, Yous ML, Gaber J, Agarwal G, et al. Perceptions of older adults in Ontario, Canada on the implementation and impact of a primary care programme, health teams advancing patient experience: strengthening quality (health TAPESTRY): a descriptive qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(6):e026257. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026257.
    1. Troup J, Fuhr DC, Woodward A, Sondorp E, Roberts B. Barriers and facilitators for scaling up mental health and psychosocial support interventions in low- and middle-income countries for populations affected by humanitarian crises: a systematic review. Int J Ment Heal Syst. 2021;15(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s13033-020-00431-1.
    1. Norton WE, Mittman BS. Scaling-up health promotion/disease prevention programs in Comunity settings: barriers. Facilitators, and Initial Recommendations [Internet]. Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation; 2010 [cited 2021 April 1]. Available from: .
    1. Kegeles SM, Rebchook G, Tebbetts S, Arnold E, The TT. Facilitators and barriers to effective scale-up of an evidence-based multilevel HIV prevention intervention. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0216-2.
    1. Bekelman DB, Rabin BA, Nowels CT, Sahay A, Heidenreich PA, Fischer SM, et al. Barriers and facilitators to scaling up outpatient palliative care. J Palliat Med. 2016;19(4):456–459. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2015.0280.
    1. Ministry of Health and Long-term Care. Family Health Teams [Internet]. Ministry of Health and Long-term Care; 2016 [cited 2021 April 1]. Available from: .
    1. Bartlett L, Vavrus F. Comparative case studies: an innovative approach. Nordic J Compar Int Educ. 2017;1(1):5–17.
    1. QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo (Version12). 2018. .
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2019;11(4):589–597. doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806.
    1. Hai-Jew S. Online survey design and data analytics: Emerging Research and Opportunities. Hershey:IGI Global; 2019.
    1. Bazeley P. The contribution of computer software to integrating qualitative and quantitative data and analyses. Res Sch. 2006;13(1):64–74.
    1. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334–340. doi: 10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>;2-G.
    1. Sandelowski M, Voils CI, Knafl G. On Quantitizing. J Mixed Methods Res. 2009;3(3):208–222. doi: 10.1177/1558689809334210.
    1. Sandelowski M. Real qualitative researchers do not count: the use of numbers in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 2001;24(3):230–240. doi: 10.1002/nur.1025.
    1. Averill JB. Matrix analysis as a complementary analytic strategy in qualitative inquiry. Qual Health Res. 2002;12(6):855–866. doi: 10.1177/104973230201200611.
    1. Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1189–1208.
    1. Dolovich L, Oliver D, Lamarche L, Agarwal G, Carr T, Chan D, et al. A protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial using the health teams advancing patient experience: strengthening quality (health TAPESTRY) platform approach to promote person-focused primary healthcare for older adults. Implement Sci. 2016;11:49. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0407-5.
    1. Blase K, Fixsen DL. Core intervention components: identifying and operationalizing what makes programs work. ASPE Research Brief. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2013:1–21. Available from: .
    1. Kirk MA, Haines ER, Rokoske FS, Powell BJ, Weinberger M, Hanson LC, et al. A case study of a theory-based method for identifying and reporting core functions and forms of evidence-based interventions. Transl Behav Med. 2021;11(1):21–33. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibz178.
    1. Lowenberg-DeBoer K, Akdere M. Integrated review of volunteer retention and implications for training. Int J Volunteer Admin. 2018;33(2):20–32. Available from: .
    1. Trent SB, Allen JA, Prange KA. Communicating our way to engaged volunteers: a mediated process model of volunteer communication, engagement, and commitment. J Commun Psychol. 2020;48(7):2174–2190. doi: 10.1002/jcop.22353.
    1. Altin SV, Stock S. The impact of health literacy, patient-centered communication and shared decision-making on patients' satisfaction with care received in German primary care practices. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):450. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1693-y.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit