RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Lifestyle intervention programmes target behavioural risk factors that contribute to cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Unfortunately, sustainable implementation of these programmes can be challenging. Gaining insights into the barriers and facilitators for successful implementation is important for maximising public health impact of these interventions. The Healthy Heart (HH) programme is an example of a combined lifestyle intervention programme. AIM: To analyse the reach, adoption, and implementation of the HH programme. DESIGN & SETTING: A mixed-methods study conducted in a general practice setting in The Netherlands. METHOD: Quantitative data were collected from the Healthy Heart study (HH study), a non-randomised cluster stepped-wedge trial to assess the effect of the HH programme on patients at high risk of developing CVDs at practice level. Qualitative data were obtained through focus groups. RESULTS: Out of 73 approached general practices, 55 implemented the HH programme. A total of 1082 patients agreed to participate in the HH study, of whom 64 patients were referred to the HH programme and 41 patients participated. Several barriers for participation were identified such as time investment, lack of risk perception, and being confident in changing lifestyle on their own. Important barriers for healthcare providers (HCPs) to refer a patient were time investment, lack of information to sufficiently inform patients, and preconceived notions regarding which patients the programme was suitable for. CONCLUSION: This study has offered insights from a patient and HCP perspective regarding barriers and facilitators for implementation of the group-based lifestyle intervention programme. The identified barriers and facilitators, and the suggested improvements, can be used by others who wish to implement a similar programme.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Dutch standard diabetes care is generally protocol-driven. However, considering that general practices wish to tailor diabetes care to individual patients and encourage self-management, particularly in light of current COVID-19 related constraints, protocols and other barriers may hinder implementation. The impact of dispensing with protocol and implementation of self-management interventions on patient monitoring and experiences are not known. This study aims to evaluate tailoring of care by understanding experiences of well-organised practices 1) when dispensing with protocol; 2) determining the key conditions for successful implementation of self-management interventions; and furthermore exploring patients' experiences regarding dispensing with protocol and self-management interventions. METHODS: in this mixed-methods prospective study, practices (n = 49) were invited to participate if they met protocol-related quality targets, and their adult patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes were invited if they had received protocol-based diabetes care for a minimum of 1 year. For practices, study participation consisted of the opportunity to deliver protocol-free diabetes care, with selection and implementation of self-management interventions. For patients, study participation provided exposure to protocol-free diabetes care and self-management interventions. Qualitative outcomes (practices: 5 focus groups, 2 individual interviews) included experiences of dispensing with protocol and the implementation process of self-management interventions, operationalised as implementation fidelity. Quantitative outcomes (patients: routine registry data, surveys) consisted of diabetes monitoring completeness, satisfaction, wellbeing and health status at baseline and follow-up (24 months). RESULTS: Qualitative: In participating practices (n = 4), dispensing with protocol encouraged reflection on tailored care and selection of various self-management interventions A focus on patient preferences, team collaboration and intervention feasibility was associated with high implementation fidelity Quantitative: In patients (n = 126), likelihood of complete monitoring decreased significantly after two years (OR 0.2 (95% CI 0.1-0.5), p < 0.001) Satisfaction decreased slightly (- 1.6 (95% CI -2.6;-0.6), p = 0.001) Non-significant declines were found in wellbeing (- 1.3 (95% CI -5.4; 2.9), p = 0.55) and health status (- 3.0 (95% CI -7.1; 1.2), p = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: To tailor diabetes care to individual patients within well-organised practices, we recommend dispensing with protocol while maintaining one structural annual monitoring consultation, combined with the well-supported implementation of feasible self-management interventions. Interventions should be selected and delivered with the involvement of patients and should involve population preferences and solid team collaborations.
