Understanding Implementation of Complex Interventions in Primary Care Teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The implementation of interventions to support practice change in primary care settings is complex. Pragmatic strategies, grounded in empiric data, are needed to navigate real-world challenges and unanticipated interactions with context that can impact implementation and outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This article uses the example of the "5As Team" randomized control trial to explore implementation strategies to promote knowledge transfer, capacity building, and practice integration, and their interaction within the context of an interdisciplinary primary care team. METHODS: We performed a qualitative evaluation of the implementation process of the 5As Team intervention study, a randomized control trial of a complex intervention in primary care. We conducted thematic analysis of field notes of intervention sessions, log books of the practice facilitation team members, and semistructured interviews with 29 interdisciplinary clinician participants. We used and further developed the Interactive Systems Framework for dissemination and implementation to interpret and structure findings. RESULTS: Three themes emerged that illuminate interactions between implementation processes, context, and outcomes: (1) facilitating team communication supported collective and individual sense-making and adoption of the innovation, (2) iterative evaluation of the implementation process and real-time feedback-driven adaptions of the intervention proved crucial for sustainable, context-appropriate intervention impact, (3) stakeholder engagement led to both knowledge exchange that contributes to local problem solving and to shaping a clinical context that is supportive to practice change. CONCLUSION: Our findings contribute pragmatic strategies that can help practitioners and researchers to navigate interactions between context, intervention, and implementation factors to increase implementation success. We further developed an implementation framework that includes sustained engagement with stakeholders, facilitation of team sense-making, and dynamic evaluation and intervention design as integral parts of complex intervention implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01967797. 18 October 2013.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.071 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".