Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28494811›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2017

The association between implementation strategy use and the uptake of hepatitis C treatment in a national sample.

Shari S Rogal, Vera Yakovchenko, Thomas J Waltz, Byron J Powell, JoAnn E Kirchner, Enola K Proctor, Rachel Gonzalez, Angela Park, David Ross, Timothy R Morgan and 2 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Shari S RogalCenter for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive, Pittsburgh, PA, 15240, USA. rogalss@upmc.edu.
Vera YakovchenkoCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Norse Rogers Memorial VA Hospital, Bedford, MA, USA.
Thomas J WaltzDepartment of Psychology, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI, USA.
Byron J PowellDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
JoAnn E KirchnerDepartment of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, HSR&D and Mental Health Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Enola K ProctorBrown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Rachel GonzalezGastroenterology Section, VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, CA, USA.
Angela ParkNew England Veterans Engineering Resource Center, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.
David RossHIV, Hepatitis and Related Conditions Programs, Office of Specialty Care Services, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
Timothy R MorganGastroenterology Section, VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, CA, USA.
Maggie ChartierHIV, Hepatitis and Related Conditions Programs, Office of Specialty Care Services, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
Matthew J ChinmanCenter for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive, Pittsburgh, PA, 15240, USA.

Funding

WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesUL1TR000448 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000448NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHepatitis C virus (HCV) is a common and highly morbid illness. New medications that have much higher cure rates have become the new evidence-based practice in the field. Understanding the implementation of these new medications nationally provides an opportunity to advance the understanding of the role of implementation strategies in clinical outcomes on a large scale. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study defined discrete implementation strategies and clustered these strategies into groups. The present evaluation assessed the use of these strategies and clusters in the context of HCV treatment across the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Health Administration, the largest provider of HCV care nationally.

methodsA 73-item survey was developed and sent to all VA sites treating HCV via electronic survey, to assess whether or not a site used each ERIC-defined implementation strategy related to employing the new HCV medication in 2014. VA national data regarding the number of Veterans starting on the new HCV medications at each site were collected. The associations between treatment starts and number and type of implementation strategies were assessed.

resultsA total of 80 (62%) sites responded. Respondents endorsed an average of 25 ± 14 strategies. The number of treatment starts was positively correlated with the total number of strategies endorsed (r = 0.43, p < 0.001). Quartile of treatment starts was significantly associated with the number of strategies endorsed (p < 0.01), with the top quartile endorsing a median of 33 strategies, compared to 15 strategies in the lowest quartile. There were significant differences in the types of strategies endorsed by sites in the highest and lowest quartiles of treatment starts. Four of the 10 top strategies for sites in the top quartile had significant correlations with treatment starts compared to only 1 of the 10 top strategies in the bottom quartile sites. Overall, only 3 of the top 15 most frequently used strategies were associated with treatment.

conclusionsThese results suggest that sites that used a greater number of implementation strategies were able to deliver more evidence-based treatment in HCV. The current assessment also demonstrates the feasibility of electronic self-reporting to evaluate ERIC strategies on a large scale. These results provide initial evidence for the clinical relevance of the ERIC strategies in a real-world implementation setting on a large scale. This is an initial step in identifying which strategies are associated with the uptake of evidence-based practices in nationwide healthcare systems.

Indexed as

Drug MonitoringAdultAntiviral AgentsFemaleHepatitis CHumansMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedUnited StatesUnited States Department of Veterans AffairsVeteransAntiviral AgentsFeasibilityImportanceInterferon-free medications

Identifiers

PMID28494811
PMCPMC5425997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.