7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Exploration of the contexts surrounding the implementation of an intervention supporting return-to-work after breast cancer in a primary care setting: starting point for an intervention development

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Many recommendations have been made regarding survivorship care provided by teams of primary care professionals. However, the nature of that follow-up, including support for return-to-work (RTW) after cancer, remains largely undefined. As implementation problems are frequently context-related, a pilot study was conducted to describe the contexts, according to Grol and Wensing, in which a new intervention is to be implemented. This pilot study is the first of three steps in intervention development planning.

          Method

          In-depth semi-structured interviews (n=6) were carried out with stakeholders selected for their knowledgeable perspective of various settings, such as hospitals, primary care, employers, and community-based organizations. Interviews focused on participants’ perceptions of key contextual facilitators and barriers to consider for the deployment of an RTW intervention in a primary care setting. Data from interviews were transcribed and analyzed. A content analysis was performed based on an iterative process.

          Results

          An intervention supporting the process of RTW in primary care makes sense for participants. Results suggest that important levers are present in organizational, professional, and social settings. However, many barriers, mainly related to organizational settings, have been identified, eg, distribution of tasks for survivor follow-up, continuity of information, and coordination of care between specialized oncology care and general primary care.

          Conclusion

          To develop and deploy the intervention, recommendations that emerged from this pilot study for overcoming barriers were identified, eg, training (professionals, survivors, and employers), the use of communication tools, and adopting a practice guide for survivor care. The results were also helpful in focusing on the relevance of an intervention supporting the RTW process as a component of primary care for survivors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Implementation, context and complexity

          Background Context is a problem in research on health behaviour change, knowledge translation, practice implementation and health improvement. This is because many intervention and evaluation designs seek to eliminate contextual confounders, when these represent the normal conditions into which interventions must be integrated if they are to be workable in practice. Discussion We present an ecological model of the ways that participants in implementation and health improvement processes interact with contexts. The paper addresses the problem of context as it affects processes of implementation, scaling up and diffusion of interventions. We extend our earlier work to develop Normalisation Process Theory and show how these processes involve interactions between mechanisms of resource mobilisation, collective action and negotiations with context. These mechanisms are adaptive. They contribute to self-organisation in complex adaptive systems. Conclusion Implementation includes the translational efforts that take healthcare interventions beyond the closed systems of evaluation studies into the open systems of ‘real world’ contexts. The outcome of these processes depends on interactions and negotiations between their participants and contexts. In these negotiations, the plasticity of intervention components, the degree of participants’ discretion over resource mobilisation and actors’ contributions, and the elasticity of contexts, all play important parts. Understanding these processes in terms of feedback loops, adaptive mechanisms and the practical compromises that stem from them enables us to see the mechanisms specified by NPT as core elements of self-organisation in complex systems.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework

            Background The effectiveness of complex interventions, as well as their success in reaching relevant populations, is critically influenced by their implementation in a given context. Current conceptual frameworks often fail to address context and implementation in an integrated way and, where addressed, they tend to focus on organisational context and are mostly concerned with specific health fields. Our objective was to develop a framework to facilitate the structured and comprehensive conceptualisation and assessment of context and implementation of complex interventions. Methods The Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework was developed in an iterative manner and underwent extensive application. An initial framework based on a scoping review was tested in rapid assessments, revealing inconsistencies with respect to the underlying concepts. Thus, pragmatic utility concept analysis was undertaken to advance the concepts of context and implementation. Based on these findings, the framework was revised and applied in several systematic reviews, one health technology assessment (HTA) and one applicability assessment of very different complex interventions. Lessons learnt from these applications and from peer review were incorporated, resulting in the CICI framework. Results The CICI framework comprises three dimensions—context, implementation and setting—which interact with one another and with the intervention dimension. Context comprises seven domains (i.e., geographical, epidemiological, socio-cultural, socio-economic, ethical, legal, political); implementation consists of five domains (i.e., implementation theory, process, strategies, agents and outcomes); setting refers to the specific physical location, in which the intervention is put into practise. The intervention and the way it is implemented in a given setting and context can occur on a micro, meso and macro level. Tools to operationalise the framework comprise a checklist, data extraction tools for qualitative and quantitative reviews and a consultation guide for applicability assessments. Conclusions The CICI framework addresses and graphically presents context, implementation and setting in an integrated way. It aims at simplifying and structuring complexity in order to advance our understanding of whether and how interventions work. The framework can be applied in systematic reviews and HTA as well as primary research and facilitate communication among teams of researchers and with various stakeholders. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0552-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              American Society of Clinical Oncology statement: achieving high-quality cancer survivorship care.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Multidiscip Healthc
                J Multidiscip Healthc
                Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
                Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
                Dove Medical Press
                1178-2390
                2018
                01 February 2018
                : 11
                : 75-83
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Longueuil, QC, Canada
                [2 ]Hôpital Charles-LeMoyne Research Center, Longueuil, QC, Canada
                [3 ]School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Longueuil, QC, Canada
                [4 ]School of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Longueuil, QC, Canada
                [5 ]Centre for Action in Work Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation, Longueuil, QC, Canada
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Karine Bilodeau, Faculty of Nursing, University of Montreal, PO Box 6128, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, QC, H3C 3J7, Canada, Tel +1 514 343 6111, Fax +1 514 343 2306, Email Karine.bilodeau.2@ 123456umontreal.ca
                Article
                jmdh-11-075
                10.2147/JMDH.S152947
                5798536
                a12f7771-fe9f-4672-a363-1d02470a4fb2
                © 2018 Bilodeau et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                History
                Categories
                Original Research

                Medicine
                complex intervention,primary care,cancer survivorship,return-to-work,knowledge translation approach

                Comments

                Comment on this article