Effectiveness of health interventions can be substantially impaired by implementation failure. Context-driven implementation strategies are critical for successful implementation. However, there is no practical, evidence-based guidance on how to map the context in order to design context-driven strategies. Therefore, this practice paper describes the development and validation of a systematic context-mapping tool. The tool was cocreated with local end-users through a multistage approach. As proof of concept, the tool was used to map beliefs and behaviour related to chronic respiratory disease within the FRESH AIR project in Uganda, Kyrgyzstan, Vietnam and Greece. Feasibility and acceptability were evaluated using the modified Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity. Effectiveness was assessed by the degree to which context-driven adjustments were made to implementation strategies of FRESH AIR health interventions. The resulting Setting-Exploration-Treasure-Trail-to-Inform-implementatioN-strateGies (SETTING-tool) consisted of six steps: (1) Coset study priorities with local stakeholders, (2) Combine a qualitative rapid assessment with a quantitative survey (a mixed-method design), (3) Use context-sensitive materials, (4) Collect data involving community researchers, (5) Analyse pragmatically and/or in-depth to ensure timely communication of findings and (6) Continuously disseminate findings to relevant stakeholders. Use of the tool proved highly feasible, acceptable and effective in each setting. To conclude, the SETTING-tool is validated to systematically map local contexts for (lung) health interventions in diverse low-resource settings. It can support policy-makers, non-governmental organisations and health workers in the design of context-driven implementation strategies. This can reduce the risk of implementation failure and the waste of resource potential. Ultimately, this could improve health outcomes.

Background: Although guidelines recommend palliative care for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, there is little evidence for the effectiveness of palliative care interventions for this patient group specifically. Aim: To describe the characteristics of palliative care interventions for patients with COPD and their informal caregivers and review the available evidence on effectiveness and implementation outcomes. Design: Systematic review and narrative synthesis (PROSPERO CRD42017079962). Data sources: Seven databases were searched for articles reporting on multi-component palliative care interventions for study populations containing ⩾30% patients with COPD. Quantitative as well as qualitative and mixed-method studies were included. Intervention characteristics, effect outcomes, implementation outcomes and barriers and facilitators for successful implementation were extracted and synthesized qualitatively. Results: Thirty-one articles reporting on twenty unique interventions were included. Only four interventions (20%) were evaluated in an adequately powered controlled trial. Most interventions comprised of longitudinal palliative care, including care coordination and comprehensive needs assessments. Results on effectiveness were mixed and inconclusive. The feasibility level varied and was context-dependent. Acceptability of the interventions was high; having someone to call for support and education about breathlessness were most valued characteristics. Most frequently named barriers were uncertainty about the timing of referral due to the unpredictable disease trajectory (referrers), time availability (providers) and accessibility (patients). Conclusion: Little high-quality evidence is yet available on the effectiveness and implementation of palliative care interventions for patients with COPD. There is a need for well-conducted effectiveness studies and adequate process evaluations using standardized methodologies to create higher-level evidence and inform successful implementation.

ObjectiveTo identify implementation determinants of blended periconception lifestyle care, and to evaluate patient satisfaction.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingThe outpatient clinic of the department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Erasmus MC.ParticipantsImplementation part: counsellors providing blended periconception lifestyle care. Patient satisfaction part: women who received blended periconception lifestyle care.MethodsBlended periconception lifestyle care, including face-to-face counselling and 26 weeks of lifestyle coaching via the online platform ‘Smarter Pregnancy’, was implemented between June–December 2018. The Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations questionnaire was used as input for the consolidated framework for implementation research to assess determinants of implementation. To evaluate patient satisfaction, patients receiving lifestyle care filled out an evaluation questionnaire, including questions on the needs for lifestyle counselling, information provision during counselling, and motivation and lifestyle change after counselling.Primary and secondary outcome measuresIdentification of implementation determinants and the level of patient satisfaction.ResultsFacilitators were reported in the implementation domains ‘characteristics of the intervention’ and ‘characteristics of the individuals’. Barriers were in the implementation domains ‘inner setting’ and ‘implementation process’. Regarding patient satisfaction on nutrition counselling, 31% of the respondents wanted information prior to the counselling session, 22% received new information after consultation, 51% got motivated to change and 40% changed their nutritional behaviour.ConclusionsA considerable number of patients improved lifestyle after counselling, although, a relatively small number wanted lifestyle counselling prior to consultation.This study underlines the importance of implementation science and the information it provides for improving the implementation process.

IntroductionLifestyle interventions are shown to be effective in improving cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. It has been suggested that general practitioners can play an essential role in CVD prevention. However, studies into lifestyle interventions for primary care patients at high cardiovascular risk are scarce and structural implementation of lifestyle interventions can be challenging. Therefore, this study aims to (1) evaluate (cost-)effectiveness of implementation of an integrated group-based lifestyle programme in primary care practices; (2) identify effective intervention elements and (3) identify implementation determinants of an integrated group-based lifestyle intervention for patients with high cardiovascular risk.Methods and analysisThe Healthy Heart study is a non-randomised cluster stepped-wedge trial. Primary care practices will first offer standard care during a control period of 2–6 months, after which practices will switch (step) to the intervention, offering participants a choice between a group-based lifestyle programme or standard care. Participants enrolled during the control period (standard care) will be compared with participants enrolled during the intervention period (combined standard care and group-based lifestyle intervention). We aim to include 1600 primary care patients with high cardiovascular risk from 55 primary care practices in the area of The Hague, the Netherlands. A mixed-methods process evaluation will be used to simultaneously assess effectiveness and implementation outcomes. The primary outcome measure will be achievement of individual lifestyle goals after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include lifestyle change of five lifestyle components (smoking, alcohol consumption, diet, weight and physical activity) and improvement of quality of life and self-efficacy. Outcomes are assessed using validated questionnaires at baseline and 3, 6, 12 and 24 months of follow-up. Routine care data will be used to compare blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Cost-effectiveness of the lifestyle intervention will be evaluated. Implementation outcomes will be assessed using the RE-AIM model, to assesses five dimensions of implementation at different levels of organisation: reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation and maintenance. Determinants of adoption and implementation will be assessed using focus groups consisting of professionals and patients.Ethics and disseminationThis study is approved by the Ethics Committee of the Leiden University Medical Center (P17.079). Results will be shared with the primary care group, healthcare providers and patients, and will be disseminated through journal publications and conference presentations.Trial registration numberNL60795.058.17. Status: pre-results