Implementation of the BETTER 2 program: a qualitative study exploring barriers and facilitators of a novel way to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care

Abstract

BackgroundBETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) is a patient-based intervention to improve chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and associated lifestyle factors in patients aged 40 to 65. The key component of BETTER is a prevention practitioner (PP), a health care professional with specialized skills in CDPS who meets with patients to develop a personalized prevention prescription, using the BETTER toolkit and Brief Action Planning. The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand facilitators and barriers of the implementation of the BETTER 2 program among clinicians, patients, and stakeholders in three (urban, rural, and remote) primary care settings in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.MethodsWe collected and analyzed responses from 20 key informant interviews and 5 focus groups, as well as memos and field notes. Data were organized using Nvivo 10 software and coded using constant comparison methods. We then employed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to focus our analysis on the domains most relevant for program implementation.ResultsThe following key elements, within the five CFIR domains, were identified as impacting the implementation of BETTER 2: (1) intervention characteristics—complexity and cost of the intervention; (2) outer setting—perception of fit including lack of remuneration, lack of resources, and duplication of services, as well as patients’ needs as perceived by physicians and patients; (3) characteristics of prevention practitioners—interest in prevention and ability to support and motivate patients; (4) inner setting—the availability of a local champion and working in a team versus working as a team; and (5) process—planning and engaging, collaboration, and teamwork.ConclusionsThe implementation of a novel CDPS program into new primary care settings is a complex, multi-level process. This study identified key elements that hindered or facilitated the implementation of the BETTER approach in three primary care settings in Newfoundland and Labrador. Employing the CFIR as an overarching typology allows for comparisons with other contexts and settings, and may be useful for practices, researchers, and policy-makers interested in the implementation of CDPS programs.

Abordaje de la enfermedad de Chagas en el primer nivel de atención: investigación cualitativa en una zona endémica de Argentina

“…Con el creciente número de intervenciones en salud, el uso de un marco de referencia como el CFIR permite su evaluación y comparación al proporcionar un lenguaje en común y herramientas para sistematización. Este y otros marcos han contribuido recientemente a este tipo de estudios 11,12,[14][15][16][17][18][19] . Además de utilizar códigos descriptivos para delinear los componentes del programa, los hallazgos permitieron realizar modificaciones e identificar barreras y facilitadores en los componentes de la intervención.…”

Reducing the use of physical restraints in home care - Development and feasibility testing of a multicomponent program to support the implementation of a guideline

“…In addition, the ambassadors felt that they did not have the organizational power to carry out this change project within their organization. Earlier studies show that the absence of staff with the right competences or expertise impedes implementation (20,39,40,(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48). For this reason, the research group formulated desirable competences (e.g.…”

Implementation of the DP-Transfers Project in Catalonia—A Translational Method to Improve Diabetes Screening and Prevention in Primary Care

“…Professionals were specifically trained in the methodology needed to achieve the objectives but they are still far from the recently proposed academic qualification of translational process experts [21]. Although there is already a critical mass of professionals who keep the project active, there are 3 relevant challenges at work: (1) at one-year of follow-up it is likely that only half of the primary care centres have successfully integrated the scheduled activities into routine clinical practice, (2) a significant number of professionals identified the project as a conventional study, and therefore, did not achieve the required level of participation to keep the programme active over time, (3) a non insignificant number of professionals will probably leave the project if they are not encouraged [22,23]. As to date the project intended to use only existing public resources, the most appropriate response would probably be to increase the funds allocated [24].…”