A Qualitative Exploration of Barriers and Facilitators to Changing Provider's Current Evaluation and Treatment Decision-Making for Velopharyngeal Insufficiency.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q2 Dentistry
Thomas J Sitzman, Erica M Weidler
{"title":"A Qualitative Exploration of Barriers and Facilitators to Changing Provider's Current Evaluation and Treatment Decision-Making for Velopharyngeal Insufficiency.","authors":"Thomas J Sitzman, Erica M Weidler","doi":"10.1177/10556656261496717","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveTo identify barriers and facilitators to changing provider's current approaches to evaluation and treatment decision-making for velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI).DesignCross-sectional qualitative study.SettingMedium and large multidisciplinary cleft teams in the USA and Canada engaged in clinical research.ParticipantsTwenty-eight surgeons and 16 speech-language pathologists from 12 cleft teams.InterventionsSemi-structured interviews were conducted exploring perceived barriers and facilitators to changing VPI evaluation and treatment decision-making. Interviews were analyzed using a thematic approach guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.ResultsProviders indicated that adoption of new approaches to VPI evaluation and decision-making would require evidence demonstrating improved speech outcomes or reduced risk of obstructive sleep apnea. Characteristics of persuasive evidence included prospective study design, comparable patient groups, standardized speech evaluations, and long-term follow-up. Providers favored applying new approaches to complex cases or defined subgroups, rather than broad adoption. Providers raised concerns about additional preoperative testing, perceiving it could increase treatment burden. When reflecting on prior changes in care delivery, providers indicated they started by discussing the potential change informally with team members to share information, gather input, and build consensus; in larger teams, discussions also occurred in formal meetings or through administrative hierarchies. Implementation decisions were consensus-based, although the pace of implementation varied among providers.ConclusionsProviders have processes for implementing changes in their VPI evaluation and treatment decision-making, and criteria by which they make the decision to implement. These findings can inform the design of implementation strategies to accelerate clinical uptake of research findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":49220,"journal":{"name":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","volume":" ","pages":"10556656261496717"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656261496717","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveTo identify barriers and facilitators to changing provider's current approaches to evaluation and treatment decision-making for velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI).DesignCross-sectional qualitative study.SettingMedium and large multidisciplinary cleft teams in the USA and Canada engaged in clinical research.ParticipantsTwenty-eight surgeons and 16 speech-language pathologists from 12 cleft teams.InterventionsSemi-structured interviews were conducted exploring perceived barriers and facilitators to changing VPI evaluation and treatment decision-making. Interviews were analyzed using a thematic approach guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.ResultsProviders indicated that adoption of new approaches to VPI evaluation and decision-making would require evidence demonstrating improved speech outcomes or reduced risk of obstructive sleep apnea. Characteristics of persuasive evidence included prospective study design, comparable patient groups, standardized speech evaluations, and long-term follow-up. Providers favored applying new approaches to complex cases or defined subgroups, rather than broad adoption. Providers raised concerns about additional preoperative testing, perceiving it could increase treatment burden. When reflecting on prior changes in care delivery, providers indicated they started by discussing the potential change informally with team members to share information, gather input, and build consensus; in larger teams, discussions also occurred in formal meetings or through administrative hierarchies. Implementation decisions were consensus-based, although the pace of implementation varied among providers.ConclusionsProviders have processes for implementing changes in their VPI evaluation and treatment decision-making, and criteria by which they make the decision to implement. These findings can inform the design of implementation strategies to accelerate clinical uptake of research findings.

质性探讨改变提供者目前对腭咽功能不全的评估和治疗决策的障碍和促进因素。
目的探讨改变提供者目前对腭咽功能不全(VPI)的评估和治疗决策方法的障碍和促进因素。设计横断面定性研究。在美国和加拿大有大中型多学科唇腭裂团队从事临床研究。参与者:来自12个唇腭裂治疗小组的28名外科医生和16名语言病理学家。干预措施进行了半结构化访谈,探讨改变VPI评估和治疗决策的感知障碍和促进因素。访谈采用执行研究综合框架指导的专题方法进行分析。结果:研究人员指出,采用新的VPI评估和决策方法需要证据来证明语音结果的改善或阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停风险的降低。有说服力证据的特点包括前瞻性研究设计、可比较的患者组、标准化的语言评估和长期随访。提供者倾向于将新方法应用于复杂病例或确定的子组,而不是广泛采用。提供者对额外的术前检查表示担忧,认为这可能会增加治疗负担。在反思护理服务的先前变化时,提供者表示,他们首先与团队成员非正式地讨论潜在的变化,以共享信息,收集输入并建立共识;在较大的团队中,讨论也会在正式会议中进行,或者通过管理层级进行。实施决策是基于共识的,尽管实施的速度因提供者而异。结论:医疗服务提供者在其VPI评估和治疗决策中有实施变更的流程,以及他们做出实施决策的标准。这些发现可以为实施策略的设计提供信息,以加速临床对研究成果的吸收。
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
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-SURGERY
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
36.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal (CPCJ) is the premiere peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, international journal dedicated to current research on etiology, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in all areas pertaining to craniofacial anomalies. CPCJ reports on basic science and clinical research aimed at better elucidating the pathogenesis, pathology, and optimal methods of treatment of cleft and craniofacial anomalies. The journal strives to foster communication and cooperation among professionals from all specialties.
×
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
小红书