Use of implementation science to qualitatively identify implementation determinants of COPD practice guidelines in primary care.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Deepa Raghavan, Karen L Drummond, Sonya A Sanders, JoAnn Kirchner
{"title":"Use of implementation science to qualitatively identify implementation determinants of COPD practice guidelines in primary care.","authors":"Deepa Raghavan, Karen L Drummond, Sonya A Sanders, JoAnn Kirchner","doi":"10.1177/14799731251314870","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a progressive respiratory disease with high morbidity and mortality. COPD guidelines (CPG) are greatly underutilized and studies attempting to improve this practice gap have yielded inconsistent results. We hypothesize that using implementation science can provide a detailed understanding of these practice gaps and the reasons behind them. <b>Methods:</b> Since primary care (PC) manages the bulk of COPD patients, in this pilot study, we use principles of implementation science to systematically explore the reasons for this implementation gap in a PC setting. We used the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Science (CFIR), a determinant framework to design semi-structured interview guides to conduct multistakeholder interviews to explore the barriers and facilitators to four key COPD-CPG with known poor uptake: inhaler education, spirometry, pulmonary rehabilitation and COPD-specific patient education from patient and provider perspectives. Qualitative analysis was performed using rapid analysis. <b>Results:</b> Seventeen respondents including both, patients and providers were interviewed. All these COPD-CPG were rated as 'highly important' suggesting that perceived importance alone is insufficient to bridge gaps in uptake. Respondents were least familiar with pulmonary rehabilitation. Physician time constraint was a significant reported barrier. There exist multilevel contextual barriers to each of these COPD-CPG. <b>Discussion:</b> To increase uptake of COPD guidelines, implementation efforts that address multilevel barriers and promote collaborative care by use of non-physician resources are likely to have higher buy-in and greater chances for success.</p>","PeriodicalId":10217,"journal":{"name":"Chronic Respiratory Disease","volume":"22 ","pages":"14799731251314870"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11800250/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chronic Respiratory Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14799731251314870","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a progressive respiratory disease with high morbidity and mortality. COPD guidelines (CPG) are greatly underutilized and studies attempting to improve this practice gap have yielded inconsistent results. We hypothesize that using implementation science can provide a detailed understanding of these practice gaps and the reasons behind them. Methods: Since primary care (PC) manages the bulk of COPD patients, in this pilot study, we use principles of implementation science to systematically explore the reasons for this implementation gap in a PC setting. We used the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Science (CFIR), a determinant framework to design semi-structured interview guides to conduct multistakeholder interviews to explore the barriers and facilitators to four key COPD-CPG with known poor uptake: inhaler education, spirometry, pulmonary rehabilitation and COPD-specific patient education from patient and provider perspectives. Qualitative analysis was performed using rapid analysis. Results: Seventeen respondents including both, patients and providers were interviewed. All these COPD-CPG were rated as 'highly important' suggesting that perceived importance alone is insufficient to bridge gaps in uptake. Respondents were least familiar with pulmonary rehabilitation. Physician time constraint was a significant reported barrier. There exist multilevel contextual barriers to each of these COPD-CPG. Discussion: To increase uptake of COPD guidelines, implementation efforts that address multilevel barriers and promote collaborative care by use of non-physician resources are likely to have higher buy-in and greater chances for success.

利用实施科学定性地确定初级保健COPD实践指南的实施决定因素。
目的:慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)是一种高发病率和死亡率的进行性呼吸系统疾病。COPD指南(CPG)未得到充分利用,试图改善这一实践差距的研究产生了不一致的结果。我们假设使用实现科学可以提供对这些实践差距及其背后原因的详细理解。方法:由于初级保健(PC)管理大部分COPD患者,在本试点研究中,我们使用实施科学原理系统地探讨PC设置中这种实施差距的原因。我们使用实施科学综合框架(CFIR),这是一个决定性框架,设计半结构化访谈指南,进行多利益相关者访谈,从患者和提供者的角度探讨COPD-CPG摄取不良的四个关键因素的障碍和促进因素:吸入器教育、肺量测量、肺康复和copd特异性患者教育。采用快速分析法进行定性分析。结果:17名受访者,包括患者和提供者。所有这些COPD-CPG都被评为“高度重要”,这表明仅感知重要性不足以弥合吸收上的差距。受访者对肺部康复最不熟悉。医生的时间限制是报道的重要障碍。每种COPD-CPG都存在多层情境障碍。讨论:为了提高COPD指南的接受度,解决多层次障碍并通过使用非医生资源促进协作护理的实施工作可能会获得更高的支持和更大的成功机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Chronic Respiratory Disease
Chronic Respiratory Disease RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
7.30%
发文量
47
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Chronic Respiratory Disease is a peer-reviewed, open access, scholarly journal, created in response to the rising incidence of chronic respiratory diseases worldwide. It publishes high quality research papers and original articles that have immediate relevance to clinical practice and its multi-disciplinary perspective reflects the nature of modern treatment. The journal provides a high quality, multi-disciplinary focus for the publication of original papers, reviews and commentary in the broad area of chronic respiratory disease, particularly its treatment and management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信