Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.

/pdf/fostering-implementation-of-health-services-research-4xghpqk7rh.pdf

Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

Progress in public health and community-based interventions has been hampered by the lack of a comprehensive evaluation framework appropriate to such programs. Multilevel interventions that incorporate policy, environmental, and individual components should be evaluated with measurements suited to their settings, goals, and purpose. In this commentary, the authors propose a model (termed the RE-AIM model) for evaluating public health interventions that assesses 5 dimensions: reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. These dimensions occur at multiple levels (e.g., individual, clinic or organization, community) and interact to determine the public health or population-based impact of a program or policy. The authors discuss issues in evaluating each of these dimensions and combining them to determine overall public health impact. Failure to adequately evaluate programs on all 5 dimensions can lead to a waste of resources, discontinuities between stages of research, and failure to improve ...

Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.

D iabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. Specifically titled sections of the standards address children with diabetes, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A large number of these interventions have been shown to be cost-effective (4). A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) andmodeled after existingmethods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA’s multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. For the current revision, committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010. Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the “Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012”) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http:// professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search. aspx. Subsequently, as is the case for all Position Statements, the standards of care were reviewed and approved by the ExecutiveCommittee of ADA’s Board ofDirectors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people. Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards. Readers who wish to comment on the “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012” are invited to do so at http://professional.diabetes.org/ CPR_Search.aspx. Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the standards revisionmeeting. Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the “Professional PracticeCommitteeMembers” table (see pg. S109). The AmericanDiabetes Association funds development of the standards and all its position statements out of its general revenues and does not utilize industry support for these purposes.

https://www.science-open.com/document_file/bb04d9d0-b3df-4133-9494-e71e300f4279/PubMedCentral/bb04d9d0-b3df-4133-9494-e71e300f4279.pdf

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012

To maintain their own health and the health of their families and communities, consumers rely heavily on the health information that is available to them. This information is at the core of the partnerships that patients and their families forge with today?s complex modern health systems. This information may be provided in a variety of forms ? ranging from a discussion between a patient and a health care provider to a health promotion advertisement, a consent form, or one of many other forms of health communication common in our society. Yet millions of Americans cannot understand or act upon this information. To address this problem, the field of health literacy brings together research and practice from diverse fields including education, health services, and social and cultural sciences, and the many organizations whose actions can improve or impede health literacy. Health Literacy: Prescription to End Confusion examines the body of knowledge that applies to the field of health literacy, and recommends actions to promote a health literate society. By examining the extent of limited health literacy and the ways to improve it, we can improve the health of individuals and populations.

Health literacy : a prescription to end confusion

Patients with chronic conditions make day-to-day decisions about—selfmanage—their illnesses. This reality introduces a new chronic disease paradigm: the patient-professional partnership, involving collaborative care and self-management education. Self-management education complements traditional patient education in supporting patients to live the best possible quality of life with their chronic condition. Whereas traditional patient education offers information and technical skills, self-management education teaches problem-solving skills. A central concept in self-management is selfefficacy—confidence to carry out a behavior necessary to reach a desired goal. Self-efficacy is enhanced when patients succeed in solving patientidentified problems. Evidence from controlled clinical trials suggests that (1) programs teaching self-management skills are more effective than informationonly patient education in improving clinical outcomes; (2) in some circumstances, self-management education improves outcomes and can reduce costs for arthritis and probably for adult asthma patients; and (3) in initial studies, a self-management education program bringing together patients with a variety of chronic conditions may improve outcomes and reduce costs. Selfmanagement education for chronic illness may soon become an integral part of high-quality primary care.

/pdf/patient-self-management-of-chronic-disease-in-primary-care-1ad2tqtu4r.pdf

Patient Self-management of Chronic Disease in Primary Care

The growing number of persons suffering from major chronic illnesses face many obstacles in coping with their condition, not least of which is medical care that often does not meet their needs for effective clinical management, psychological support, and information. The primary reason for this may be the mismatch between their needs and care delivery systems largely designed for acute illness. Evidence of effective system changes that improve chronic care is mounting. We have tried to summarize this evidence in the Chronic Care Model (CCM) to guide quality improvement. In this paper we describe the CCM, its use in intensive quality improvement activities with more than 100 health care organizations, and insights gained in the process.

/pdf/improving-chronic-illness-care-translating-evidence-into-4yiil0t31j.pdf

Improving Chronic Illness Care: Translating Evidence Into Action

In chronic illness, day-to-day care responsibilities fall most heavily on patients and their families. Effective collaborative relationships with health care providers can help patients and families better handle self-care tasks. Collaborative management is care that strengthens and supports self-care in chronic illness while assuring that effective medical, preventive, and health maintenance interventions take place. In this paper, the following essential elements of collaborative management developed in light of behavioral principles and empirical evidence about effective care in chronic illness are discussed: 1) collaborative definition of problems, in which patient-defined problems are identified along with medical problems diagnosed by physicians; 2) targeting, goal setting, and planning, in which patients and providers focus on a specific problem, set realistic objectives, and develop an action plan for attaining those objectives in the context of patient preferences and readiness; 3) creation of a continuum of self-management training and support services, in which patients have access to services that teach skills needed to carry out medical regimens, guide health behavior changes, and provide emotional support; and 4) active and sustained follow-up, in which patients are contacted at specified intervals to monitor health status, identify potential complications, and check and reinforce progress in implementing the care plan. These elements make up a common core of services for chronic illness care that need not be reinvented for each disease.

Collaborative Management of Chronic Illness

Rationale: There is a need for a brief, validated patient self-report instrument to assess the extent to which patients with chronic illness receive care that aligns with the Chronic Care Model—measuring care that is patient-centered, proactive, planned and includes collaborative goal setting; problem-solving and follow-up support. Sample: A total of 283 adults reporting one or more chronic illness from a large integrated health care delivery system were studied. Methods: Participants completed the 20-item Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) as well as measures of demographic factors, a patient activation scale, and subscales from a primary care assessment instrument so that we could evaluate measurement performance, construct, and concurrent validity of the PACIC. Results: The PACIC consists of 5 scales and an overall summary score, each having good internal consistency for brief scales. As predicted, the PACIC was only slightly correlated with age and gender, and unrelated to education. Contrary to prediction, it was only slightly correlated (r 0.13) with number of chronic conditions. The PACIC demonstrated moderate test-retest reliability (r 0.58 during the course of 3 months) and was correlated moderately, as predicted (r 0.32– 0.60, median 0.50, P 0.001) to measures of primary care and patient activation. Discussion: The PACIC appears to be a practical instrument that is reliable and has face, construct, and concurrent validity. The resulting questionnaire is in the public domain, and recommendations for its use in research and quality improvement are outlined.

https://www.familycarenetwork.com/sites/default/files/Development%20and%20Validation%20of%20PACIC.pdf

Development and validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC)

Health outcomes for patients with major chronic illnesses depend on the appropriate use of proven pharmaceuticals and other therapeutic technologies, and effective self-management by patients. Effective chronic illness care then bases clinical decisions on the best, rigorous scientific evidence, or evidence-based medicine. Effective support for patient self-management includes efforts to increase patient participation in care and collaborative goal-setting and planning of treatment. These interventions appear somewhat consistent with recent conceptualizations of patient-centered care. The consistent delivery of proven therapies and information and support for self-management requires practice systems organized for that purpose. The Chronic Care Model is a compilation of those practice system changes shown to improve chronic care. This paper explores the concept of patient-centeredness and its relationship to the Chronic Care Model. We conclude that the Model is both evidence-based and patient-centered and...

Finding common ground: patient-centeredness and evidence-based chronic illness care.

Caring for patients with chronic illness in an era of cost constraints and performance monitoring has led to a sharp growth in "disease management" efforts by health systems utilizing internal innovators or outside firms. This paper describes surveys and site visits of the chronic disease management activities of 72 programs nominated by experts in the field of chronic illness care as being particularly innovative and effective. The survey and analysis were guided by a Model for Effective Chronic Illness Care derived from a process of literature synthesis and expert review. The model proved to be useful in describing the characteristics consistently shared by successful programs, and the surveys indicated common barriers to further expansion of innovative pilot programs. The survey indicated that most of the nominated programs were limited in their effectiveness and reach by their reliance on traditional patient education, rather than modern self-management support, poor linkages to primary care, and reliance on referrals rather than population-based approaches.

Judith Schaefer

Papers

Improving Chronic Illness Care: Translating Evidence Into Action

Collaborative Management of Chronic Illness

Development and validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC)

Finding common ground: patient-centeredness and evidence-based chronic illness care.

A survey of leading chronic disease management programs: are they consistent with the literature?