33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Developing an implementation strategy for a digital health intervention: an example in routine healthcare

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          Evidence on how to implement new interventions into complex healthcare environments is often poorly reported and indexed, reducing its potential to inform initiatives to improve healthcare services. Using the implementation of a digital intervention within routine National Health Service (NHS) practice, we provide an example of how to develop a theoretically based implementation plan and how to report it transparently. In doing so we also highlight some of the challenges to implementation in routine healthcare.

          Methods

          The implemented intervention was HeLP-Diabetes, a digital self-management programme for people with Type 2 Diabetes, which was effective in improving diabetes control. The target setting for the implementation was an inner city London Clinical Commissioning Group in the NHS comprised of 34 general practices. HeLP-Diabetes was designed to be offered to patients as part of routine diabetes care across England. Evidence synthesis, engagement of local stakeholders, a theory of implementation (Normalization Process Theory), feedback, qualitative interviews and usage data were used to develop an implementation plan.

          Results

          A new implementation plan was developed to implement HeLP-Diabetes within routine practice. Individual component strategies were selected and developed informed by Normalization Process Theory. These strategies included: engagement of local opinion leaders, provision of educational materials, educational visits, educational meetings, audit and feedback and reminders. Additional strategies were introduced iteratively to address barriers that arose during the implementation. Barriers largely related to difficulties in allocating resources to implement the intervention within routine care.

          Conclusion

          This paper provides a worked example of implementing a digital health intervention. The learning from this work can inform others undertaking the work of planning and executing implementation activities in routine healthcare. Of particular importance is: the selection of appropriate theory to guide the implementation process and selection of strategies; ensuring that enough attention is paid to planning implementation; and a flexible approach that allows response to emerging barriers.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3615-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Self-management education: History, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms

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

            Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review

            Background Normalization Process Theory (NPT) identifies, characterises and explains key mechanisms that promote and inhibit the implementation, embedding and integration of new health techniques, technologies and other complex interventions. A large body of literature that employs NPT to inform feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions has now emerged. The aims of this review were to review this literature; to identify and characterise the uses and limits of NPT in research on the implementation and integration of healthcare interventions; and to explore NPT’s contribution to understanding the dynamics of these processes. Methods A qualitative systematic review was conducted. We searched Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar for articles with empirical data in peer-reviewed journals that cited either key papers presenting and developing NPT, or the NPT Online Toolkit (www.normalizationprocess.org). We included in the review only articles that used NPT as the primary approach to collection, analysis or reporting of data in studies of the implementation of healthcare techniques, technologies or other interventions. A structured data extraction instrument was used, and data were analysed qualitatively. Results Searches revealed 3322 citations. We show that after eliminating 2337 duplicates and broken or junk URLs, 985 were screened as titles and abstracts. Of these, 101 were excluded because they did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 884 articles for full-text screening. Of these, 754 did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 130 papers presenting results from 108 identifiable studies to be included in the review. NPT appears to provide researchers and practitioners with a conceptual vocabulary for rigorous studies of implementation processes. It identifies, characterises and explains empirically identifiable mechanisms that motivate and shape implementation processes. Taken together, these mean that analyses using NPT can effectively assist in the explanation of the success or failure of specific implementation projects. Ten percent of papers included critiques of some aspect of NPT, with those that did mainly focusing on its terminology. However, two studies critiqued NPT emphasis on agency, and one study critiqued NPT for its normative focus. Conclusions This review demonstrates that researchers found NPT useful and applied it across a wide range of interventions. It has been effectively used to aid intervention development and implementation planning as well as evaluating and understanding implementation processes themselves. In particular, NPT appears to have offered a valuable set of conceptual tools to aid understanding of implementation as a dynamic process. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0758-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Effectiveness of a diabetes education and self management programme (DESMOND) for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus: three year follow-up of a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care

              Objective To measure whether the benefits of a single education and self management structured programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus are sustained at three years. Design Three year follow-up of a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care, with randomisation at practice level. Setting 207 general practices in 13 primary care sites in the United Kingdom. Participants 731 of the 824 participants included in the original trial were eligible for follow-up. Biomedical data were collected on 604 (82.6%) and questionnaire data on 513 (70.1%) participants. Intervention A structured group education programme for six hours delivered in the community by two trained healthcare professional educators compared with usual care. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. The secondary outcomes were blood pressure, weight, blood lipid levels, smoking status, physical activity, quality of life, beliefs about illness, depression, emotional impact of diabetes, and drug use at three years. Results HbA1c levels at three years had decreased in both groups. After adjusting for baseline and cluster the difference was not significant (difference −0.02, 95% confidence interval −0.22 to 0.17). The groups did not differ for the other biomedical and lifestyle outcomes and drug use. The significant benefits in the intervention group across four out of five health beliefs seen at 12 months were sustained at three years (P<0.01). Depression scores and quality of life did not differ at three years. Conclusion A single programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus showed no difference in biomedical or lifestyle outcomes at three years although there were sustained improvements in some illness beliefs. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17844016.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                44 020 7794 0500 , jamie.ross@ucl.ac.uk
                f.stevenson@ucl.ac.uk
                C.N.Dack@bath.ac.uk
                k.pal@ucl.ac.uk
                c.r.may@soton.ac.uk
                s.michie@ucl.ac.uk
                maria.barnard1@nhs.net
                elizabeth.murray@ucl.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                19 October 2018
                19 October 2018
                2018
                : 18
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000000121901201, GRID grid.83440.3b, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, , UCL, ; Upper 3rd floor, Royal Free hospital, Rowland Hill St, London, NW32PF UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2162 1699, GRID grid.7340.0, Department of Psychology, , University of Bath, ; Bath, UK
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9297, GRID grid.5491.9, Faculty of Health Sciences, , University of Southampton, ; Southampton, UK
                [4 ]ISNI 0000000121901201, GRID grid.83440.3b, Health Psychology, , UCL, ; London, UK
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0004 4687 3624, GRID grid.417095.e, Department of Diabetes & Endocrinology, , Whittington Health NHS Trust, ; London, UK
                Article
                3615
                10.1186/s12913-018-3615-7
                6194634
                30340639
                8f3b18ee-961b-418f-bb8e-75d5f63d465a
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100007602, Programme Grants for Applied Research;
                Award ID: RP-PG-0609-10135
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Health & Social care
                implementation,implementation planning,implementation strategy,implementation theories,digital health,routine practice,healthcare,diabetes mellitus,type 2,health plan implementation,delivery of health care

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Similar content85

                Cited by29