Strategy Configurations Directly Linked to Higher Hepatitis C Virus Treatment Starts

Abstract

Background: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) cares for more patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) than any other US health care system. We tracked the implementation strategies that VA sites used to implement highly effective new treatments for HCV with the aim of uncovering how combinations of implementation strategies influenced the uptake of the HCV treatment innovation. We applied Configurational Comparative Methods (CCMs) to uncover causal dependencies and identify difference-making strategy configurations, and to distinguish higher from lower HCV treating sites.Methods: We surveyed providers to assess VA sites' use of 73 implementation strategies to promote HCV treatment in the fiscal year 2015. CCMs were used to identify strategy configurations that uniquely distinguished higher HCV from lower HCV treating sites.Results: From the 73 possible implementation strategies, CCMs identified 5 distinct strategy configurations, or "solution paths." These were comprised of 10 individual strategies that collectively explained 80% of the sites with higher HCV treatment starts with 100% consistency. Using any one of the following 5 solution paths was sufficient to produce higher treatment starts: (1) technical assistance; (2) engaging in a learning collaborative AND designating leaders; (3) site visits AND outreach to patients to promote uptake and adherence; (4) developing resource sharing agreements AND an implementation blueprint; OR (5) creating new clinical teams AND sharing quality improvement knowledge with other sites AND engaging patients. There was equifinality in that the presence of any one of the 5 solution paths was sufficient for higher treatment starts.Conclusions: Five strategy configurations distinguished higher HCV from lower HCV treating sites with 100% consistency. CCMs represent a methodological advancement that can help inform highyield implementation strategy selection and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of future implementation efforts.

What’s the “Secret Sauce”? How Implementation Variation Affects the Success of Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach

“…To achieve data reduction, we used a con gurational method to identify candidate factors, described in detail in prior studies. [32][33][34] To summarize, we used the "minimally su cient conditions" function within the R package "cna" to look across all 17 cases and all 8 factors at once. The consistency threshold was initially set to 100% and the coverage threshold to 15%.…”

Getting to implementation: a protocol for a Hybrid III stepped wedge cluster randomized evaluation of using data-driven implementation strategies to improve cirrhosis care for Veterans

“…As the HIT Collaborative was developed, an embedded evaluation team was established. Using an annual 73item survey of implementation strategies, grounded in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) implementation strategy nomenclature, the evaluation team identified a small subset of implementation strategies associated with increased hepatitis C treatment [9,10,[19][20][21]. As the HIT Collaborative pivots towards a focus on cirrhosis care, the evaluation team will expand upon this work using similar implementation strategy surveys, this time tailored to cirrhosis efforts, to develop and then test an implementation intervention.…”

Establishing cross-systems collaborations for implementation: protocol for a longitudinal mixed methods study

“…QCA is well suited for our study because instead of treating each condition as an independent predictor, it allows for identification of different combinations of conditions associated with an outcome. This approach is useful for identifying combinations of implementation strategies associated with innovation uptake [58]. First, data on each condition and outcome will be calibrated as an interval level measure between 0 and 1 [44,45].…”