Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to Identify Barriers and Facilitators for the Implementation of an Internet-Based Patient-Provider Communication Service in Five Settings: A Qualitative Study

Cecilie Varsi, Mirjam Ekstedt, Deede Gammon, Cornelia M Ruland, Cecilie Varsi, Mirjam Ekstedt, Deede Gammon, Cornelia M Ruland

Abstract

Background: Although there is growing evidence of the positive effects of Internet-based patient-provider communication (IPPC) services for both patients and health care providers, their implementation into clinical practice continues to be a challenge.

Objective: The 3 aims of this study were to (1) identify and compare barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of an IPPC service in 5 hospital units using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), (2) assess the ability of the different constructs of CFIR to distinguish between high and low implementation success, and (3) compare our findings with those from other studies that used the CFIR to discriminate between high and low implementation success.

Methods: This study was based on individual interviews with 10 nurses, 6 physicians, and 1 nutritionist who had used the IPPC to answer messages from patients.

Results: Of the 36 CFIR constructs, 28 were addressed in the interviews, of which 12 distinguished between high and low implementation units. Most of the distinguishing constructs were related to the inner setting domain of CFIR, indicating that institutional factors were particularly important for successful implementation. Health care providers' beliefs in the intervention as useful for themselves and their patients as well as the implementation process itself were also important. A comparison of constructs across ours and 2 other studies that also used the CFIR to discriminate between high and low implementation success showed that 24 CFIR constructs distinguished between high and low implementation units in at least 1 study; 11 constructs distinguished in 2 studies. However, only 2 constructs (patient need and resources and available resources) distinguished consistently between high and low implementation units in all 3 studies.

Conclusions: The CFIR is a helpful framework for illuminating barriers and facilitators influencing IPPC implementation. However, CFIR's strength of being broad and comprehensive also limits its usefulness as an implementation framework because it does not discriminate between the relative importance of its many constructs for implementation success. This is the first study to identify which CFIR constructs are the most promising to distinguish between high and low implementation success across settings and interventions. Findings from this study can contribute to the refinement of CFIR toward a more succinct and parsimonious framework for planning and evaluation of the implementation of clinical interventions.

Clinicaltrial: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00971139; http://clinicaltrial.gov/ct2/show/NCT00971139 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6cWeqN1uY).

Keywords: CFIR; Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; Internet; eHealth; electronic mail; implementation; qualitative research; secure Web communication.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: CMR is the developer of IPPC, but has no financial or ownership rights to the IPPC service. All authors are affiliated with the research center, but have no financial or nonfinancial interest to declare in relation to this study.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Internet-based patient-provider communication (IPPC) message flow between patients and health care providers.

References

    1. Wallwiener M, Wallwiener CW, Kansy JK, Seeger H, Rajab TK. Impact of electronic messaging on the patient-physician interaction. J Telemed Telecare. 2009 Jul;15(5):243–50. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2009.090111.
    1. Haun JN, Lind JD, Shimada SL, Martin TL, Gosline RM, Antinori N, Stewart M, Simon SR. Evaluating user experiences of the secure messaging tool on the Veterans Affairs' patient portal system. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(3):e75. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2976.
    1. Børøsund E, Cvancarova M, Moore SM, Ekstedt M, Ruland CM. Comparing effects in regular practice of e-communication and Web-based self-management support among breast cancer patients: preliminary results from a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(12):e295. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3348.
    1. Grimsbø GH, Engelsrud GH, Ruland CM, Finset A. Cancer patients' experiences of using an Interactive Health Communication Application (IHCA) Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2012;7:1–14. doi: 10.3402/qhw.v7i0.15511.
    1. de Jong CC, Ros WJ, Schrijvers G. The effects on health behavior and health outcomes of Internet-based asynchronous communication between health providers and patients with a chronic condition: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(1):e19. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3000.
    1. Wibe T, Hellesø R, Varsi C, Ruland C, Ekstedt M. How does an online patient-nurse communication service meet the information needs of men with recently diagnosed testicular cancer? ISRN Nurs. 2012;2012:260975. doi: 10.5402/2012/260975.
    1. Ye J, Rust G, Fry-Johnson Y, Strothers H. E-mail in patient-provider communication: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Aug;80(2):266–73. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.038.
    1. Kruse CS, Bolton K, Freriks G. The effect of patient portals on quality outcomes and its implications to meaningful use: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e44. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3171.
    1. Kruse CS, Argueta DA, Lopez L, Nair A. Patient and provider attitudes toward the use of patient portals for the management of chronic disease: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e40. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3703.
    1. Bishop TF, Press MJ, Mendelsohn JL, Casalino LP. Electronic communication improves access, but barriers to its widespread adoption remain. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013 Aug;32(8):1361–7. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1151.
    1. Atherton H, Sawmynaden P, Sheikh A, Majeed A, Car J. Email for clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD007978. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007978.pub2.
    1. Baur S. Health information technology policy issues: relevance and implications for eHealth applications. In: Noar SM, Harrington NG, editors. eHealth Applications: Promising Strategies for Behavior Change. New York: Routledge; 2012. pp. 246–62.
    1. Patt MR, Houston TK, Jenckes MW, Sands DZ, Ford DE. Doctors who are using e-mail with their patients: a qualitative exploration. J Med Internet Res. 2003;5(2):e9. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5.2.e9.
    1. Kummervold PE, Johnsen JK. Physician response time when communicating with patients over the Internet. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e79. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1583.
    1. Cornwall A, Moore S, Plant H. Embracing technology: patients', family members' and nurse specialists' experience of communicating using e-mail. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2008 Jul;12(3):198–208. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2007.09.008.
    1. Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet. 2003 Oct 11;362(9391):1225–30. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14546-1.
    1. Øvretveit J, Andreen-Sachs M, Carlsson J, Gustafsson H, Hansson J, Keller C, Lofgren S, Mazzocato P, Tolf S, Brommels M. Implementing organisation and management innovations in Swedish healthcare: lessons from a comparison of 12 cases. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26(2):237–57. doi: 10.1108/14777261211230790.
    1. Mair FS, May C, O'Donnell C, Finch T, Sullivan F, Murray E. Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-health systems: an explanatory systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2012 May 1;90(5):357–64. doi: 10.2471/BLT.11.099424.
    1. McLean S, Sheikh A, Cresswell K, Nurmatov U, Mukherjee M, Hemmi A, Pagliari C. The impact of telehealthcare on the quality and safety of care: a systematic overview. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e71238. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071238.
    1. World Health Organization. 2015. [2015-11-06]. Glossary of globalization, trade and health terms
    1. Elbert NJ, van Os-Medendorp H, van Renselaar W, Ekeland AG, Hakkaart-van Roijen RL, Raat H, Nijsten TE, Pasmans SG. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ehealth interventions in somatic diseases: a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(4):e110. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2790.
    1. Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E, Morton SC, Shekelle PG. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 2006 May 16;144(10):742–52.
    1. Benzer JK, Beehler S, Cramer IE, Mohr DC, Charns MP, Burgess JF. Between and within-site variation in qualitative implementation research. Implement Sci. 2013;8:4. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-4.
    1. Alexander JA, Hearld LR. The science of quality improvement implementation: developing capacity to make a difference. Med Care. 2011 Dec;49 Suppl:S6–20. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181e1709c.
    1. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:53. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0.
    1. Davies P, Walker AE, Grimshaw JM. A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations. Implement Sci. 2010;5:14. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-14.
    1. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999 Sep;89(9):1322–7.
    1. Rycroft-Malone J. The PARIHS framework--a framework for guiding the implementation of evidence-based practice. J Nurs Care Qual. 2004;19(4):297–304.
    1. Hu P, Chau P, Sheng O, Tam K. Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. J Manage Inf Syst. 1999;16(2):91–112.
    1. May C. A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in health care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:86. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-6-86.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.
    1. Kalkan A, Roback K, Hallert E, Carlsson P. Factors influencing rheumatologists' prescription of biological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: an interview study. Implement Sci. 2014;9:153. doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0153-5.
    1. Abbott PA, Foster J, Marin HF, Dykes PC. Complexity and the science of implementation in health IT--knowledge gaps and future visions. Int J Med Inform. 2014 Jul;83(7):e12–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.10.009.
    1. Lash SJ, Timko C, Curran GM, McKay JR, Burden JL. Implementation of evidence-based substance use disorder continuing care interventions. Psychol Addict Behav. 2011 Jun;25(2):238–51. doi: 10.1037/a0022608.
    1. Robins LS, Jackson JE, Green BB, Korngiebel D, Force RW, Baldwin L. Barriers and facilitators to evidence-based blood pressure control in community practice. J Am Board Fam Med. 2013;26(5):539–57. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2013.05.130060.
    1. Williams EC, Johnson ML, Lapham GT, Caldeiro RM, Chew L, Fletcher GS, McCormick KA, Weppner WG, Bradley KA. Strategies to implement alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care settings: a structured literature review. Psychol Addict Behav. 2011 Jun;25(2):206–14. doi: 10.1037/a0022102.
    1. Sanchez SH, Sethi SS, Santos SL, Boockvar K. Implementing medication reconciliation from the planner's perspective: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:290. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-290.
    1. Ramsey K, Moyo W, Mbuyita S, Kujawski S, Mbaruku G, Freedman LP. Studying moderators of implementation: analysis from an intervention to reduce disrespect and abuse in facility-based childbirth. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(Suppl 2):P100. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-s2-p100.
    1. Balas MC, Burke WJ, Gannon D, Cohen MZ, Colburn L, Bevil C, Franz D, Olsen KM, Ely EW, Vasilevskis EE. Implementing the awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle into everyday care: opportunities, challenges, and lessons learned for implementing the ICU Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Guidelines. Crit Care Med. 2013 Sep;41(9 Suppl 1):S116–27. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a17064.
    1. Ilott I, Gerrish K, Booth A, Field B. Testing the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research on health care innovations from South Yorkshire. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013 Oct;19(5):915–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01876.x.
    1. Richardson JE, Abramson EL, Pfoh ER, Kaushal R. Bridging informatics and implementation science: evaluating a framework to assess electronic health record implementations in community settings. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2012;2012:770–8.
    1. Rojas SL, Ashok M, Morss DS, Wines R, Teixeira-Poit S. Contextual Frameworks for Research on the Implementation of Complex System Interventions. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014.
    1. Gilmer TP, Katz ML, Stefancic A, Palinkas LA. Variation in the implementation of California's Full Service Partnerships for persons with serious mental illness. Health Serv Res. 2013 Dec;48(6 Pt 2):2245–67. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12119.
    1. Ruland CM, Borosund E, Varsi C. User requirements for a practice-integrated nurse-administered online communication service for cancer patients. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;146:221–5.
    1. Varsi C, Gammon D, Wibe T, Ruland CM. Patients' reported reasons for non-use of an internet-based patient-provider communication service: qualitative interview study. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(11):e246. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2683.
    1. Wibe T, Ekstedt M, Hellesø R, Varsi C, Ruland C. "You are not at all bothersome" - nurses' online communication with testicular cancer patients. Nurs Inform. 2012;2012:453.
    1. Kvale S, Brinkmann S. Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2009.
    1. World Medical Association World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053.
    1. Hsieh H, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277–88. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Lowery JC. Evaluation of a large-scale weight management program using the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) Implement Sci. 2013;8:51. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-51.
    1. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
    1. Bergin M. NVivo 8 and consistency in data analysis: reflecting on the use of a qualitative data analysis program. Nurse Res. 2011;18(3):6–12. doi: 10.7748/nr2011.04.18.3.6.c8457.
    1. Zapka J, Simpson K, Hiott L, Langston L, Fakhry S, Ford D. A mixed methods descriptive investigation of readiness to change in rural hospitals participating in a tele-critical care intervention. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:33. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-33.
    1. Krause J, Van LJ, Klomp R, Huntink E, Aakhus E, Flottorp S, Jaeger C, Steinhaeuser J, Godycki-Cwirko M, Kowalczyk A, Agarwal S, Wensing M, Baker R. Identifying determinants of care for tailoring implementation in chronic diseases: an evaluation of different methods. Implement Sci. 2014;9:102. doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0102-3.
    1. Baker R, Camosso-Stefinovic J, Gillies C, Shaw EJ, Cheater F, Flottorp S, Robertson N. Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(3):CD005470. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005470.pub2.
    1. Powell BJ, Proctor EK, Glass JE. A systematic review of strategies for implementing empirically supported mental health interventions. Res Soc Work Pract. 2014 Mar 1;24(2):192–212. doi: 10.1177/1049731513505778.
    1. Baker TB, Gustafson DH, Shah D. How can research keep up with eHealth? Ten strategies for increasing the timeliness and usefulness of eHealth research. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(2):e36. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2925.
    1. Gammon D, Berntsen GK, Koricho AT, Sygna K, Ruland C. The chronic care model and technological research and innovation: a scoping review at the crossroads. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e25. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3547.
    1. American Academy of Family Physicians Joint principles of the Patient-Centered Medical Home. Del Med J. 2008 Jan;80(1):21–2.
    1. Gee PM, Greenwood DA, Paterniti DA, Ward D, Miller LM. The eHealth Enhanced Chronic Care Model: a theory derivation approach. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(4):e86. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4067.
    1. Green CA, McCarty D, Mertens J, Lynch FL, Hilde A, Firemark A, Weisner CM, Pating D, Anderson BM. A qualitative study of the adoption of buprenorphine for opioid addiction treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014 Mar;46(3):390–401. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2013.09.002.
    1. Center for Clinical Management Research. [2015-11-06]. CFIR technical assistance website .
    1. Sandström B, Borglin G, Nilsson R, Willman A. Promoting the implementation of evidence-based practice: a literature review focusing on the role of nursing leadership. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2011 Dec;8(4):212–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6787.2011.00216.x.
    1. Boström A, Rudman A, Ehrenberg A, Gustavsson JP, Wallin L. Factors associated with evidence-based practice among registered nurses in Sweden: a national cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:165. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-165.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅