Application of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to assess factors that may influence implementation of tobacco use treatment guidelines in the Viet Nam public health care delivery system

Abstract

BackgroundServices to treat tobacco dependence are not readily available to smokers in low-middle income countries (LMICs) where smoking prevalence remains high. We are conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of two strategies for implementing tobacco use treatment guidelines in 26 community health centers (CHCs) in Viet Nam. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), prior to implementing the trial, we conducted formative research to (1) identify factors that may influence guideline implementation and (2) inform further modifications to the intervention that may be necessary to translate a model of care delivery from a high-income country (HIC) to the local context of a LMIC.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with CHC medical directors, health care providers, and village health workers (VHWs) in eight CHCs (n = 40). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and translated into English. Two qualitative researchers used both deductive (CFIR theory driven) and inductive (open coding) approaches to analysis developed codes and themes relevant to the aims of this study.ResultsThe interviews explored four out of five CFIR domains (i.e., intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and individual characteristics) that were relevant to the analysis. Potential facilitators of the intervention included the relative advantage of the intervention compared with current practice (intervention characteristics), awareness of the burden of tobacco use in the population (outer setting), tension for change due to a lack of training and need for skill building and leadership engagement (inner setting), and a strong sense of collective efficacy to provide tobacco cessation services (individual characteristics). Potential barriers included the perception that the intervention was more complex (intervention characteristic) and not necessarily compatible (inner setting) with current workflows and staffing historically designed to address infectious disease prevention and control rather than chronic disease prevention and competing priorities that are determined by the MOH (outer setting).ConclusionsIn this study, CFIR provided a valuable framework for evaluating factors that may influence implementation of a systems-level intervention for tobacco control in a LMIC and understand what adaptations may be needed to translate a model of care delivery from a HIC to a LMIC.Trial registration NCT02564653. Registered September 2015

From research to evidence-informed decision making: a systematic approach

“… 35 – 37 LMICs are generally characterized by suboptimal primary care standards, general poor health and significant challenges in implementing clinically and cost-effective interventions. 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 There is a growing recognition of the need to improve the translation of evidence into practice in these LMICs and to adapt evidence-based interventions proven to be effective in developed settings to the local context. 35 , 40 , 41 The FRESH AIR study, aimed at addressing the need to prevent, diagnose and treat non-communicable lung diseases (NCLDs) in LMICs is considered an ideal case study.…”

Exploring barriers and facilitators to integrated hypertension-HIV management in Ugandan HIV clinics using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)

“…Facilitators arose from constructs which positively influenced HTN/HIV service provision at all the three HIV clinics. Complexity was 'reverse rated' to be consistent with the other constructs; i.e., a positive sign denotes perception of simplicity and a negative sign denotes complexity in implementation [22,24,25]. (Table 3).…”

Identifying barriers, facilitators, and implementation strategies for a faith-based physical activity program

“…53 This framework was chosen because it is comprehensive, examines domains influencing implementation effectiveness, and is well suited for complex, multilevel interventions. 54,55 Open-ended questions assessing all five CFIR domains (intervention characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, process, and characteristics of individuals) were adapted from those presented in the online interview guide tool (cfirguide.org) to assess implementation and the domains from Schell and colleagues 56 to assess sustainability. While the domains and constructs included in the CFIR are more oriented towards a healthcare setting, there are few options of frameworks aimed at examining best practices for health promotion in faith-based settings.…”