Browsing by Author "Choate, Ashley"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Adapting to CONNECT: modifying a nursing home-based team-building intervention to improve hospital care team interactions, functioning, and implementation readiness.
    (BMC health services research, 2022-07) Wang, Virginia; D'Adolf, Joshua; Decosimo, Kasey; Robinson, Katina; Choate, Ashley; Bruening, Rebecca; Sperber, Nina; Mahanna, Elizabeth; Van Houtven, Courtney H; Allen, Kelli D; Colón-Emeric, Cathleen; Damush, Teresa M; Hastings, Susan N

    Background

    Clinical interventions often need to be adapted from their original design when they are applied to new settings. There is a growing literature describing frameworks and approaches to deploying and documenting adaptations of evidence-based practices in healthcare. Still, intervention modifications are often limited in detail and justification, which may prevent rigorous evaluation of interventions and intervention adaptation effectiveness in new contexts. We describe our approach in a case study, combining two complementary intervention adaptation frameworks to modify CONNECT for Quality, a provider-facing team building and communication intervention designed to facilitate implementation of a new clinical program.

    Methods

    This process of intervention adaptation involved the use of the Planned Adaptation Framework and the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications, for systematically identifying key drivers, core and non-core components of interventions for documenting planned and unplanned changes to intervention design.

    Results

    The CONNECT intervention's original context and setting is first described and then compared with its new application. This lays the groundwork for the intentional modifications to intervention design, which are developed before intervention delivery to participating providers. The unpredictable nature of implementation in real-world practice required unplanned adaptations, which were also considered and documented. Attendance and participation rates were examined and qualitative assessment of reported participant experience supported the feasibility and acceptability of adaptations of the original CONNECT intervention in a new clinical context.

    Conclusion

    This approach may serve as a useful guide for intervention implementation efforts applied in diverse clinical contexts and subsequent evaluations of intervention effectiveness.

    Trial registration

    The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03300336 ) on September 28, 2017.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Implementation of a group physical therapy program for Veterans with knee osteoarthritis.
    (BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2020-02) Allen, Kelli D; Sheets, Brandon; Bongiorni, Dennis; Choate, Ashley; Coffman, Cynthia J; Hoenig, Helen; Huffman, Kim; Mahanna, Elizabeth P; Oddone, Eugene Z; Van Houtven, Courtney; Wang, Virginia; Woolson, Sandra; Hastings, Susan N
    BACKGROUND:A previous randomized clinical trial found that a Group Physical Therapy (PT) program for knee osteoarthritis yielded similar improvements in pain and function compared with traditional individual PT. Based on these findings the Group PT program was implemented in a Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System. The objective of this study was to evaluate implementation metrics and changes in patient-level measures following implementation of the Group PT program. METHODS:This was a one-year prospective observational study. The Group PT program involved 6 weekly sessions. Implementation metrics included numbers of referrals and completed sessions. Patient-level measures were collected at the first and last PT sessions and included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC; self-report of pain, stiffness and function (range 0-96)) and a 30-s chair rise test. RESULTS:During the evaluation period, 152 patients were referred, 80 had an initial session scheduled, 71 completed at least one session and 49 completed at least 5 sessions. The mean number of completed appointments per patient was 4.1. Among patients completing baseline and follow-up measures, WOMAC scores (n = 33) improved from 56.8 (SD = 15.8) to 46.9 (SD = 14.0); number of chair rises (n = 38) completed in 30 s increased from 10.4 (SD = 5.1) to 11.9 (SD = 5.0). CONCLUSIONS:Patients completing the Group PT program in this implementation phase showed clinically relevant improvements comparable to those observed in the previous clinical trial that compared group and individual PT for knee osteoarthritis. These results are important because Group PT can improve efficiency and access compared with individual PT. However, there were some limitations with respect to attendance and completion rates, and program adaptations may be needed to optimize these implementation metrics. Larger, longer-term studies are required to more fully evaluate the effectiveness of this program.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Implementation of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial to evaluate a hospital mobility program.
    (Trials, 2020-10) Hastings, Susan N; Stechuchak, Karen M; Choate, Ashley; Mahanna, Elizabeth P; Van Houtven, Courtney; Allen, Kelli D; Wang, Virginia; Sperber, Nina; Zullig, Leah; Bosworth, Hayden B; Coffman, Cynthia J

    Background

    Stepped wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRT) are increasingly used to evaluate new clinical programs, yet there is limited guidance on practical aspects of applying this design. We report our early experiences conducting a SW-CRT to examine an inpatient mobility program (STRIDE) in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). We provide recommendations for future research using this design to evaluate clinical programs.

    Methods

    Based on data from study records and reflections from the investigator team, we describe and assess the design and initial stages of a SW-CRT, from site recruitment to program launch in 8 VHA hospitals.

    Results

    Site recruitment consisted of thirty 1-h conference calls with representatives from 22 individual VAs who expressed interest in implementing STRIDE. Of these, 8 hospitals were enrolled and randomly assigned in two stratified blocks (4 hospitals per block) to a STRIDE launch date. Block 1 randomization occurred in July 2017 with first STRIDE launch in December 2017; block 2 randomization occurred in April 2018 with first STRIDE launch in January 2019. The primary study outcome of discharge destination will be assessed using routinely collected data in the electronic health record (EHR). Within randomized blocks, two hospitals per sequence launched STRIDE approximately every 3 months with primary outcome assessment paused during the 3-month time period of program launch. All sites received 6-8 implementation support calls, according to a pre-specified schedule, from the time of recruitment to program launch, and all 8 sites successfully launched within their assigned 3-month window. Seven of the eight sites initially started with a limited roll out (for example on one ward) or modified version of STRIDE (for example, using existing staff to conduct walks until new positions were filled).

    Conclusions

    Future studies should incorporate sufficient time for site recruitment and carefully consider the following to inform design of SW-CRTs to evaluate rollout of a new clinical program: (1) whether a blocked randomization fits study needs, (2) the amount of time and implementation support sites will need to start their programs, and (3) whether clinical programs are likely to include a "ramp-up" period. Successful execution of SW-CRT designs requires both adherence to rigorous design principles and also careful consideration of logistical requirements for timing of program roll out.

    Trial registration

    ClinicalsTrials.gov NCT03300336 . Prospectively registered on 3 October 2017.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Improving Veteran Access to Integrated Management of Back Pain (AIM-Back): Protocol for an Embedded Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial.
    (Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2020-12) George, Steven Z; Coffman, Cynthia J; Allen, Kelli D; Lentz, Trevor A; Choate, Ashley; Goode, Adam P; Simon, Corey B; Grubber, Janet M; King, Heather; Cook, Chad E; Keefe, Francis J; Ballengee, Lindsay A; Naylor, Jennifer; Brothers, Joseph Leo; Stanwyck, Catherine; Alkon, Aviel; Hastings, Susan N

    Background

    Coordinated efforts between the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Veterans Affairs have built the capacity for large-scale clinical research investigating the effectiveness of nonpharmacologic pain treatments. This is an encouraging development; however, what constitutes best practice for nonpharmacologic management of low back pain (LBP) is largely unknown.

    Design

    The Improving Veteran Access to Integrated Management of Back Pain (AIM-Back) trial is an embedded pragmatic cluster-randomized trial that will examine the effectiveness of two different care pathways for LBP. Sixteen primary care clinics will be randomized 1:1 to receive training in delivery of 1) an integrated sequenced-care pathway or 2) a coordinated pain navigator pathway. Primary outcomes are pain interference and physical function (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Short Form [PROMIS-SF]) collected in the electronic health record at 3 months (n=1,680). A subset of veteran participants (n=848) have consented to complete additional surveys at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months for supplementary pain and other measures.

    Summary

    AIM-Back care pathways will be tested for effectiveness, and treatment heterogeneity will be investigated to identify which veterans may respond best to a given pathway. Health care utilization patterns (including opioid use) will also be compared between care pathways. Therefore, the AIM-Back trial will provide important information that can inform the future delivery of nonpharmacologic treatment of LBP.