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

      Assessing the implementation of interventions addressing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening in high-income countries

      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: The context of an intervention may influence its effectiveness and success in meeting the needs of the targeted population. Implementation science frameworks have been developed, but previous literature in this field has been mixed. This paper aimed to assess the implementation success of interventions, identified from a systematic review, that reduced inequalities in cancer screening between people in low and high socioeconomic groups.

          Design and Methods: The implementation framework by Proctor et al. was utilised to assess the potential success of 6 studies reporting on 7 interventions in the “real-world” environment. A standardised rating system to identify the overall implementation success of each intervention was established.

          Results: Four interventions (57%) demonstrated high potential to be implemented successfully. Interventions included enhanced reminder letters and GP-endorsed screening invitations, containing evidence on the acceptability, from participants and stakeholders, appropriateness and direct cost of the intervention.

          Conclusion: While some interventions reduced socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation, there have been missed opportunities to integrate the experiences of the targeted population into design and evaluation components. This has limited the potential for transferability of outcomes to other settings.

          Significance for public health

          Interventions may be effective within a research context and the sample population but may not equally benefit all when implemented. Implementation science frameworks are useful in understanding how and why an intervention may succeed or fail in the “real-world” environment. This project assessed the implementation success of interventions, identified from a systematic review that reduced inequalities in cancer screening between people in low and high socioeconomic groups. Over half of the interventions that produced a positive impact in the research context had high potential for implementation success. This assessment demonstrated that no one size fits and for the socioeconomically disadvantaged, input from these participants along the implementation spectrum is a crucial element for ensuring transferability to other settings. To make sure finite research funding is used effectively, engagement with disadvantaged populations is of public health importance because programs or services need to be tailored to their specific needs to reduce inequalities.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

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

          Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda

          An unresolved issue in the field of implementation research is how to conceptualize and evaluate successful implementation. This paper advances the concept of “implementation outcomes” distinct from service system and clinical treatment outcomes. This paper proposes a heuristic, working “taxonomy” of eight conceptually distinct implementation outcomes—acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability—along with their nominal definitions. We propose a two-pronged agenda for research on implementation outcomes. Conceptualizing and measuring implementation outcomes will advance understanding of implementation processes, enhance efficiency in implementation research, and pave the way for studies of the comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies.
            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: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Acceptability of Interventions Delivered Online and Through Mobile Phones for People Who Experience Severe Mental Health Problems: A Systematic Review

              Background Psychological interventions are recommended for people with severe mental health problems (SMI). However, barriers exist in the provision of these services and access is limited. Therefore, researchers are beginning to develop and deliver interventions online and via mobile phones. Previous research has indicated that interventions delivered in this format are acceptable for people with SMI. However, a comprehensive systematic review is needed to investigate the acceptability of online and mobile phone-delivered interventions for SMI in depth. Objective This systematic review aimed to 1) identify the hypothetical acceptability (acceptability prior to or without the delivery of an intervention) and actual acceptability (acceptability where an intervention was delivered) of online and mobile phone-delivered interventions for SMI, 2) investigate the impact of factors such as demographic and clinical characteristics on acceptability, and 3) identify common participant views in qualitative studies that pinpoint factors influencing acceptability. Methods We conducted a systematic search of the databases PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science in April 2015, which yielded a total of 8017 search results, with 49 studies meeting the full inclusion criteria. Studies were included if they measured acceptability through participant views, module completion rates, or intervention use. Studies delivering interventions were included if the delivery method was online or via mobile phones. Results The hypothetical acceptability of online and mobile phone-delivered interventions for SMI was relatively low, while actual acceptability tended to be high. Hypothetical acceptability was higher for interventions delivered via text messages than by emails. The majority of studies that assessed the impact of demographic characteristics on acceptability reported no significant relationships between the two. Additionally, actual acceptability was higher when participants were provided remote online support. Common qualitative factors relating to acceptability were safety and privacy concerns, the importance of an engaging and appealing delivery format, the inclusion of peer support, computer and mobile phone literacy, technical issues, and concerns about the impact of psychological state on intervention use. Conclusions This systematic review provides an in-depth focus on the acceptability of online and mobile phone-delivered interventions for SMI and identified the need for further research in this area. Based on the results from this review, we recommend that researchers measure both hypothetical and actual acceptability to identify whether initial perceptions of online and mobile phone-delivered interventions change after access. In addition, more focus is needed on the potential impact of demographic and clinical characteristics on acceptability. The review also identified issues with module completion rates and intervention use as measures of acceptability. We therefore advise researchers to obtain qualitative reports of acceptability throughout each phase of intervention development and testing. Further implications and opportunities for future research are discussed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Public Health Res
                JPHR
                Journal of Public Health Research
                PAGEPress Publications, Pavia, Italy
                2279-9028
                2279-9036
                10 November 2020
                14 October 2020
                : 9
                : 4
                : 1713
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Cancer Council Australia , Sydney
                [2 ]Department of Nursing, University of Melbourne , Australia
                Author notes
                Cancer Council Australia, Level 14, 477 Pitt Street Sydney, New South Wales, 2000, Australia. Tel. +61.02.8063.4121. E- mail: annie.bygrave@ 123456cancer.org.au

                Contributions: AB, KW, designed the project; AB, wrote the protocol, extracted data and analysed the data, draft and revised the paper; KW, SA, provided project guidance, interpreted results and revised the paper.

                Conflict of interests: The authors declare no potential conflict of interests.

                Availability of data and materials: The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

                Article
                10.4081/jphr.2020.1713
                7662454
                d16a542f-13cd-4e7e-afcc-48688002c1e6
                ©Copyright: the Author(s)

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( by-nc 4.0) which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

                History
                : 04 December 2019
                : 29 September 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 18, Pages: 6
                Funding
                Funding: No specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
                Categories
                Article

                cancer screening,high-income,implementation,intervention,low socioeconomic

                Comments

                Comment on this article