skip to main content


Title: Using normalisation process theory to understand workflow implications of decision support implementation across diverse primary care settings
Background Effective implementation of technologies into clinical workflow is hampered by lack of integration into daily activities. Normalisation process theory (NPT) can be used to describe the kinds of ‘work’ necessary to implement and embed complex new practices. We determined the suitability of NPT to assess the facilitators, barriers and ‘work’ of implementation of two clinical decision support (CDS) tools across diverse care settings. Methods We conducted baseline and 6-month follow-up quantitative surveys of clinic leadership at two academic institutions’ primary care clinics randomised to the intervention arm of a larger study. The survey was adapted from the NPT toolkit, analysing four implementation domains: sense-making, participation, action, monitoring. Domains were summarised among completed responses (n=60) and examined by role, institution, and time. Results The median score for each NPT domain was the same across roles and institutions at baseline, and decreased at 6 months. At 6 months, clinic managers’ participation domain (p=0.003), and all domains for medical directors (p<0.003) declined. At 6 months, the action domain decreased among Utah respondents (p=0.03), and all domains decreased among Wisconsin respondents (p≤0.008). Conclusions This study employed NPT to longitudinally assess the implementation barriers of new CDS. The consistency of results across participant roles suggests similarities in the work each role took on during implementation. The decline in engagement over time suggests the need for more frequent contact to maintain momentum. Using NPT to evaluate this implementation provides insight into domains which can be addressed with participants to improve success of new electronic health record technologies. Trial registration number NCT02534987 .  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1664644
NSF-PAR ID:
10163063
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
Volume:
26
Issue:
1
ISSN:
2632-1009
Page Range / eLocation ID:
e100088
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Background Participation in ambulatory cardiac rehabilitation remains low, especially among older adults. Although mobile health cardiac rehabilitation (mHealth-CR) provides a novel opportunity to deliver care, age-specific impairments may limit older adults’ uptake, and efficacy data are currently lacking. Objective This study aims to describe the design of the rehabilitation using mobile health for older adults with ischemic heart disease in the home setting (RESILIENT) trial. Methods RESILIENT is a multicenter randomized clinical trial that is enrolling patients aged ≥65 years with ischemic heart disease in a 3:1 ratio to either an intervention (mHealth-CR) or control (usual care) arm, with a target sample size of 400 participants. mHealth-CR consists of a commercially available mobile health software platform coupled with weekly exercise therapist sessions to review progress and set new activity goals. The primary outcome is a change in functional mobility (6-minute walk distance), which is measured at baseline and 3 months. Secondary outcomes are health status, goal attainment, hospital readmission, and mortality. Among intervention participants, engagement with the mHealth-CR platform will be analyzed to understand the characteristics that determine different patterns of use (eg, persistent high engagement and declining engagement). Results As of December 2021, the RESILIENT trial had enrolled 116 participants. Enrollment is projected to continue until October 2023. The trial results are expected to be reported in 2024. Conclusions The RESILIENT trial will generate important evidence about the efficacy of mHealth-CR among older adults in multiple domains and characteristics that determine the sustained use of mHealth-CR. These findings will help design future precision medicine approaches to mobile health implementation in older adults. This knowledge is especially important in light of the COVID-19 pandemic that has shifted much of health care to a remote, internet-based setting. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03978130; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03978130 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/32163 
    more » « less
  2. The 4T Study 1 is a clinical pragmatic research trial that starts continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) within 30 days of T1D diagnosis and monitors PROs. We report the longitudinal relationship of PROs between newly diagnosed youth and parents/guardians (PG). PROs surveys were administered to youth and PG at baseline, 3, and 6 months. PG PROs included the 20-item parent Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS-P) and youth PROs were the 2-item Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS-2) and the 7-item PROMIS Pediatric Global Health Scale (PGH-7). Pearson correlations evaluated the relationship between scores on the PG and youth PROs. Youth (n=60 who were aged ≥11 years) with new onset T1D and their PG (n=125) were eligible to complete PROs, yet response rates varied (at baseline, 3-, 6-months: Youth 59%, 53%, and 50% vs PG 74%, 70%, and 66%). Correlations showed that PG diabetes distress was positively correlated with child diabetes distress at baseline (r=0.48, p=0.003) and at 3 months (r= 0.35, p=0.058). However, by 6 months, this association decreased in strength and significance (r=0.16, p=0.42). Youth global health was inversely correlated with PG diabetes distress at baseline (r=-0.36, p=0.029) and 3 months (r=-0.53, p=0.002) and this correlation was not significant at 6 months (r =-0.049, p=0.81). These data suggest that the relationship between PG diabetes distress and youth psychosocial states are dynamic. PG and youth psychosocial states are strongly associated after diagnosis and decrease over time. Utilization of CGM, age, T1D duration, response rate, and changes in the PG-youth relationship (such as decreased adult involvement or increased independence of youth) may contribute to our findings. Further investigation of longitudinal relationships between PG and youth PROs may provide additional insight into PG and youth psychosocial states and diabetes outcomes and indicate optimal timing for assessment and treatment referral. Disclosure S.A.Alamarie: None. F.K.Bishop: None. D.P.Zaharieva: Advisory Panel; Dexcom, Inc., Research Support; Hemsley Charitable Trust, International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, Insulet Corporation, Speaker's Bureau; American Diabetes Association, Ascensia Diabetes Care, Medtronic. P.Prahalad: None. M.Desai: None. D.M.Maahs: Advisory Panel; Medtronic, LifeScan Diabetes Institute, MannKind Corporation, Consultant; Abbott, Research Support; Dexcom, Inc. K.K.Hood: Consultant; Cecelia Health. A.Addala: None. E.Pang: None. A.L.Cortes-navarro: None. N.Arrizon-ruiz: None. I.Balistreri: None. A.Loyola: None. A.Schneider-utaka: None. V.Ritter: None. B.Shaw: None. Funding National Institutes of Health (R18DK122422) 
    more » « less
  3. Psychosocial states significantly impact T1D care and management for youth and their families. As part of a clinical pragmatic study, we report the number of elevated Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in newly diagnosed families and track their progress to psychological care. Parents/guardians (PG, n=125/133 4T Study 1 participants) and youth ≥11 years (n=60) were eligible to complete baseline, 3-, and 6-month PROs. PG completed Diabetes Distress Scale - Parent (DDS-P) and youth completed Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS-2) and PROMIS Pediatric Global Health Scale (PGH). Elevated PROs were based on published guidelines and were referred to the clinic's psychological services. Survey completeness was verified by staff to identify false flags. Staff reapproached the participant's psychologist for re-flagged PROs >3 months after the last visit. Over the three study time periods, a total of 99 PROs flags were evaluated (Table). At baseline, there were 32% flagged PROs, which decreased to 27% and 23% at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Elevated DDS-P was the most common reason for referral (75%). Early psychological intervention may explain the reduction in elevated PROs over the study period. With the implementation of systematic PROs in this new onset population, we observed it was common to have diabetes distress and families were receptive to psychological services. Disclosure A.Schneider-utaka: None. F.K.Bishop: None. D.P.Zaharieva: Advisory Panel; Dexcom, Inc., Research Support; Hemsley Charitable Trust, International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, Insulet Corporation, Speaker's Bureau; American Diabetes Association, Ascensia Diabetes Care, Medtronic. P.Prahalad: None. M.Desai: None. D.M.Maahs: Advisory Panel; Medtronic, LifeScan Diabetes Institute, MannKind Corporation, Consultant; Abbott, Research Support; Dexcom, Inc. K.K.Hood: Consultant; Cecelia Health. A.Addala: None. E.Pang: None. A.L.Cortes-navarro: None. I.Balistreri: None. A.Loyola: None. N.Arrizon-ruiz: None. S.A.Alamarie: None. V.Ritter: None. B.Shaw: None. Funding National Institutes of Health (R18DK122422) 
    more » « less
  4. Background Over the past 2 decades, various desktop and mobile telemedicine systems have been developed to support communication and care coordination among distributed medical teams. However, in the hands-busy care environment, such technologies could become cumbersome because they require medical professionals to manually operate them. Smart glasses have been gaining momentum because of their advantages in enabling hands-free operation and see-what-I-see video-based consultation. Previous research has tested this novel technology in different health care settings. Objective The aim of this study was to review how smart glasses were designed, used, and evaluated as a telemedicine tool to support distributed care coordination and communication, as well as highlight the potential benefits and limitations regarding medical professionals’ use of smart glasses in practice. Methods We conducted a literature search in 6 databases that cover research within both health care and computer science domains. We used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology to review articles. A total of 5865 articles were retrieved and screened by 3 researchers, with 21 (0.36%) articles included for in-depth analysis. Results All of the reviewed articles (21/21, 100%) used off-the-shelf smart glass device and videoconferencing software, which had a high level of technology readiness for real-world use and deployment in care settings. The common system features used and evaluated in these studies included video and audio streaming, annotation, augmented reality, and hands-free interactions. These studies focused on evaluating the technical feasibility, effectiveness, and user experience of smart glasses. Although the smart glass technology has demonstrated numerous benefits and high levels of user acceptance, the reviewed studies noted a variety of barriers to successful adoption of this novel technology in actual care settings, including technical limitations, human factors and ergonomics, privacy and security issues, and organizational challenges. Conclusions User-centered system design, improved hardware performance, and software reliability are needed to realize the potential of smart glasses. More research is needed to examine and evaluate medical professionals’ needs, preferences, and perceptions, as well as elucidate how smart glasses affect the clinical workflow in complex care environments. Our findings inform the design, implementation, and evaluation of smart glasses that will improve organizational and patient outcomes. 
    more » « less
  5. First-generation (FG) and/or low-income (LI) engineering student populations are of particular interest in engineering education. However, these populations are not defined in a consistent manner across the literature or amongst stakeholders. The intersectional identities of these groups have also not been fully explored in most quantitative-based engineering education research. This research paper aims to answer the following three research questions: (RQ1) How do students’ demographic characteristics and college experiences differ depending on levels of parent educational attainment (which forms the basis of first-generation definitions) and family income? (RQ2) How do ‘first-generation’ and ‘low-income’ definitions impact results comparing to their continuing-generation and higher-income peers? (RQ3) How does considering first-generation and low-income identities through an intersectional lens deepen insight into the experiences of first-generation and low-income groups? Data were drawn from a nationally representative survey of engineering juniors and seniors (n = 6197 from 27 U.S. institutions). Statistical analyses were conducted to evaluate respondent differences in demographics (underrepresented racial/ethnic minority (URM), women, URM women), college experiences (internships/co-ops, having a job, conducting research, and study abroad), and engineering task self-efficacy (ETSE), based on various definitions of ‘first generation’ and ‘low income’ depending on levels of parental educational attainment and self-reported family income. Our results indicate that categorizing a first-generation student as someone whose parents have less than an associate’s degree versus less than a bachelor’s degree may lead to different understandings of their experiences (RQ1). For example, the proportion of URM students is higher among those whose parents have less than an associate’s degree than among their “associate’s degree or more” peers (26% vs 11.9%). However, differences in college experiences are most pronounced among students whose parents have less than a bachelor’s degree compared with their “bachelor’s degree or more” peers: having a job to help pay for college (55.4% vs 47.3%), research with faculty (22.7% vs 35.0%), and study abroad (9.0% vs 17.3%). With respect to differences by income levels, respondents are statistically different across income groups, with fewer URM students as family income level increases. As family income level increases, there are more women in aggregate, but fewer URM women. College experiences are different for the middle income or higher group (internship 48.4% low and lower-middle income vs 59.0% middle income or higher; study abroad 11.2% vs 16.4%; job 58.6% vs 46.8%). Despite these differences in demographic characteristics and college experiences depending on parental educational attainment and family income, our dataset indicates that the definition does not change the statistical significance when comparing between first-generation students and students who were continuing-generation by any definition (RQ2). First-generation and low-income statuses are often used as proxies for one another, and in this dataset, are highly correlated. However, there are unique patterns at the intersection of these two identities. For the purpose of our RQ3 analysis, we define ‘first-generation’ as students whose parents earned less than a bachelor’s degree and ‘low-income’ as low or lower-middle income. In this sample, 68 percent of students were neither FG nor LI while 11 percent were both (FG&LI). On no measure of demographics or college experience is the FG&LI group statistically similar to the advantaged group. Low-income students had the highest participation in working to pay for college, regardless of parental education, while first-generation students had the lower internship participation than low-income students. Furthermore, being FG&LI is associated with lower ETSE compared with all other groups. These results suggest that care is required when applying the labels “first-generation” and/or “low-income” when considering these groups in developing institutional support programs, in engineering education research, and in educational policy. Moreover, by considering first-generation and low-income students with an intersectional lens, we gain deeper insight into engineering student populations that may reveal potential opportunities and barriers to educational resources and experiences that are an important part of preparation for an engineering career. 
    more » « less