Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
  • Log out
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Adapting Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments to Fit Context for Practice-Based Research (PBR)

Bethany M. Kwan, Jenny Rementer, Natalie D. Ritchie, Andrea L. Nederveld, Phoutdavone Phimphasone-Brady, Martha Sajatovic, Donald E. Nease and Jeanette A. Waxmonsky
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine September 2020, 33 (5) 716-727; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2020.05.200049
Bethany M. Kwan
From the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (BMK, JR, ALN, P P-B, DEN, JAW); Adult & Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (BMK, DEN); Center for Health Systems Research, Office of Research, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, CO (NR); Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (NR, PP-B); College of Nursing, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (NR); Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Departments of Psychiatry and of Neurology, Cleveland, OH (MS); New Directions Behavioral Healthcare LLC, Overland Park, KS (JAW).
PhD, MSPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jenny Rementer
From the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (BMK, JR, ALN, P P-B, DEN, JAW); Adult & Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (BMK, DEN); Center for Health Systems Research, Office of Research, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, CO (NR); Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (NR, PP-B); College of Nursing, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (NR); Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Departments of Psychiatry and of Neurology, Cleveland, OH (MS); New Directions Behavioral Healthcare LLC, Overland Park, KS (JAW).
MA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Natalie D. Ritchie
From the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (BMK, JR, ALN, P P-B, DEN, JAW); Adult & Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (BMK, DEN); Center for Health Systems Research, Office of Research, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, CO (NR); Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (NR, PP-B); College of Nursing, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (NR); Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Departments of Psychiatry and of Neurology, Cleveland, OH (MS); New Directions Behavioral Healthcare LLC, Overland Park, KS (JAW).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrea L. Nederveld
From the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (BMK, JR, ALN, P P-B, DEN, JAW); Adult & Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (BMK, DEN); Center for Health Systems Research, Office of Research, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, CO (NR); Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (NR, PP-B); College of Nursing, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (NR); Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Departments of Psychiatry and of Neurology, Cleveland, OH (MS); New Directions Behavioral Healthcare LLC, Overland Park, KS (JAW).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Phoutdavone Phimphasone-Brady
From the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (BMK, JR, ALN, P P-B, DEN, JAW); Adult & Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (BMK, DEN); Center for Health Systems Research, Office of Research, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, CO (NR); Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (NR, PP-B); College of Nursing, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (NR); Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Departments of Psychiatry and of Neurology, Cleveland, OH (MS); New Directions Behavioral Healthcare LLC, Overland Park, KS (JAW).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martha Sajatovic
From the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (BMK, JR, ALN, P P-B, DEN, JAW); Adult & Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (BMK, DEN); Center for Health Systems Research, Office of Research, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, CO (NR); Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (NR, PP-B); College of Nursing, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (NR); Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Departments of Psychiatry and of Neurology, Cleveland, OH (MS); New Directions Behavioral Healthcare LLC, Overland Park, KS (JAW).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Donald E. Nease Jr
From the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (BMK, JR, ALN, P P-B, DEN, JAW); Adult & Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (BMK, DEN); Center for Health Systems Research, Office of Research, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, CO (NR); Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (NR, PP-B); College of Nursing, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (NR); Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Departments of Psychiatry and of Neurology, Cleveland, OH (MS); New Directions Behavioral Healthcare LLC, Overland Park, KS (JAW).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeanette A. Waxmonsky
From the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (BMK, JR, ALN, P P-B, DEN, JAW); Adult & Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research & Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (BMK, DEN); Center for Health Systems Research, Office of Research, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, CO (NR); Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (NR, PP-B); College of Nursing, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (NR); Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Departments of Psychiatry and of Neurology, Cleveland, OH (MS); New Directions Behavioral Healthcare LLC, Overland Park, KS (JAW).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Introduction: Complex behavioral interventions such as diabetes shared medical appointments (SMAs) should be tested in pragmatic trials. Partnerships between dissemination and implementation scientists and practice-based research networks can support adaptation and implementation to ensure such interventions fit the context. This article describes adaptations to and implementation of the Targeted Training in Illness Management (TTIM) intervention to fit the primary care diabetes context.

Methods: The Invested in Diabetes pragmatic trial engaged 22 practice-based research network practices to compare 2 models of diabetes SMAs, based on TTIM. We used surveys, interviews, and observation to assess practice contextual factors, such as practice size, location, payer mix, change and work culture, motivation to participate, and clinical and administrative capacity. The enhanced Replicating Effective Programs framework was used to guide adaptations to TTIM and implementation in participating practices.

Results: Practices varied in size and patient demographics. All practices had integrated behavioral health, but limited health educators or prescribing providers. Adaptations to SMA delivery accommodated the need for flexibility in personnel and reduced scheduling burden. Adaptations to TTIM content were designed to fit general primary care diabetes and Spanish-speaking patients.

Conclusion: Enhanced Replicating Effective Programs is a useful process framework for adaptation, implementation, and testing of diabetes SMAs in primary care. Adapting intervention content, delivery, and training to fit context can help ensure pragmatic trials have both internal and external validity. Attention to intervention fit to context can support continued practice engagement in research and sustainability of evidence-based interventions.

  • Comparative Effectiveness Research
  • Diabetes Mellitus
  • Evidence-Based Medicine
  • Implementation Science
  • Mental Health
  • Motivation
  • Patient Care Team
  • Practice-Based Research
  • Primary Health Care
  • Shared Medical Appointments
  • Stakeholder Participation
  • Surveys and Questionnaires

Introduction

Calls for conducting pragmatic research emphasize generating evidence that can be readily adopted and sustained in real-world care settings.1,2 In contrast to traditional randomized controlled trials, pragmatic trials are “undertaken in the ‘real world’ and with usual care and [are] intended to help support a decision on whether to deliver an intervention.”3 Pragmatic research methods have grown in use and acceptability.4⇓–6 Pragmatic trials should be designed to closely approximate existing resources, systems, and processes in diverse usual care settings and patient populations.3 Pragmatic trials for complex behavioral interventions in primary care are still emerging, and methods are needed to minimize practice burden while maintaining fidelity to research protocols.7,8

One challenge is ensuring intervention fit for the primary care context in terms of feasibility and sustainability (using existing staff, resources, and payment mechanisms), acceptability, and responsiveness to the needs of patients, practice members, and organizational leaders. Here, we describe our approach to ensuring intervention fit to context for the Invested in Diabetes pragmatic trial, including support for intervention adoption and implementation. Invested in Diabetes is testing the comparative effectiveness of 2 models of diabetes shared medical appointments (SMAs) in primary care.9 The study compares “patient-driven” to “standardized” diabetes SMAs. Both behavioral intervention models include diabetes self-management education and support (DSME/S) using the evidence-based Targeted Training in Illness Management (TTIM) curriculum.10⇓⇓–13 The setting is 2 practice-based research networks (PBRNs): the State Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners and the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network. PBRNs are an important resource for conducting pragmatic trials,14 connecting researchers with practices that are both open to innovation and research and tolerant of balancing fidelity needs with local customization.15,16

PBRNs provide infrastructure for identification of relevant settings, practice recruitment and engagement, and methods for randomization that account for practice context and variation.17

Heintzman et al14 noted that PBRNs benefit from using dissemination and implementation (D&I) frameworks and collaborating with D&I scientists and called for studies that highlight these mutually beneficial partnerships. D&I frameworks inform the processes by which interventions are adapted and implemented in the primary care context and subsequent reporting and evaluation.18 The enhanced Replicating Effective Programs (REP) framework supports intervention uptake through adaptation to local practice settings, while retaining sufficient fidelity to core elements. Enhanced REP consists of 5 phases: preconditions, preimplementation, implementation, maintenance and evolution, and facilitation.19⇓–21 Facilitation within enhanced REP is a collaborative process in which practice coaches and local stakeholders work together to implement and sustain new interventions by encouraging organizational buy-in and support.22 Here, we describe application of the enhanced REP framework for adapting diabetes SMAs to fit PBRN practice context in the Invested in Diabetes pragmatic trial. Specifically, we describe (1) use of PBRNs to recruit practices for pragmatic research, (2) use of the enhanced REP framework to adapt the TTIM intervention to the primary care context before implementation, and (3) use of practice facilitation and mixed methods to refine intervention adaptations and uptake.

Methods

Study Design

Invested in Diabetes is a cluster randomized pragmatic trial testing the comparative effectiveness of patient-driven versus standardized models of diabetes SMAs.9 We used quantitative and qualitative methods to assess practice contextual factors relevant to intervention adaptation and implementation. We used the enhanced REP framework to adapt interventions for fit within this context, while retaining core elements needed to address research questions. Core elements included (1) use of TTIM curriculum materials, (2) a closed group setting (2+ patients, ideally 8 to 10 per cohort), (3) a set number of sessions with equal duration (12 total hours of instruction), (4) a standardized condition (content delivered by a health educator with topics in a set order) versus the addition of a behavioral health provider (BHP) who delivers TTIM mental and behavioral health content (in 1 to 2+ sessions) and a peer mentor (in all sessions) with topic order selected by each group (patient-driven condition), and (5) patients meeting individually with prescribing providers for medical management.

Setting and Participants

Twenty-two practices were randomized to deliver patient-driven or standardized diabetes SMAs (11 per condition) using existing clinical staff and payment mechanisms. Eligible practices were required to have existing health education staff and BHPs, defined as licensed clinical social workers and/or licensed clinical psychologists who worked in primary care (note that we did not restrict participation to or formally assess level or type of integrated care model for this project; practices endorsed a range of colocated to fully integrated models). As part of usual processes of care, patients could be referred to BHPs in both study conditions for behavioral health concerns; for the patient-driven condition, BHPs were intentionally included in the delivery of the TTIM content, thus actively integrating the BHPs into diabetes education and self-management support. Covariate constrained randomization ensured balance in practice characteristics across conditions.17

Quantitative Measures and Data Collection

A practice representative (eg, practice manager) first completed a baseline practice characteristics survey, including 20 items assessing practice size and type, types and numbers of providers in the practice (including clinicians with prescribing privileges and those eligible to serve as health educators), patient demographics, payer mix, and prior experience with SMAs and quality improvement (QI) initiatives. This survey also included several subscales from the Patient-Centered Medical Home Practice Monitor, consisting of 33 items addressing QI processes, data capacity, team-based care, and population management subscales.23,24 All practice staff and clinicians were invited to complete the Practice Culture Assessment, a 22‐item survey of organizational change culture, work culture, and practice chaos.25

Qualitative Data Collection

Individual interviews were conducted with specific care team members from each practice, including 27 medical providers, 19 BHPs, 23 health educators, 27 SMA coordinators, and 14 practice managers. A semistructured interview guide focused on experience and understanding of SMAs, perceived importance of SMAs, sustainability factors, and expected patient response to the SMAs. A demographic form assessed interviewee practice role, background, and credentials.

Quantitative Analysis

Baseline practice characteristics and culture surveys were analyzed with descriptive statistics and compared across conditions. Categorical variables were analyzed via the Fisher's exact test due to the small sample size. Medians were compared via the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Practice Culture Assessment scores were compared using linear regression with a fixed term for study arm and random facility effect to account for correlation among responses from the same practice.

Qualitative Analysis

Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis (data triangulation and a constant comparative technique). Using immersion crystallization with repeated phases of reading, reviewing, and refining themes and codes,26 a team of 3 qualitative researchers developed a master code list using a priori codes based on the underlying project theory and de novo codes developed through an iterative, collaborative process.27 The team then independently coded the same documents and compared them until a high degree of conceptual interrater reliability was established, at which point documents were independently coded by 1 team member. We used a matrix approach to summarize qualitative data across themes for each practice.28 Corroborating/legitimizing (ie, determining validity of qualitative themes) was conducted to ensure accuracy of themes and as an approach to member checking.26 This includes a process of reviewing interviews after analysis, reviewing the literature to confirm/disconfirm themes, and seeking input from the research team. The qualitative interview findings were intended to complement and triangulate with quantitative data and stakeholder discussions; insights were consistent across sources. We intentionally interviewed specific care team members from each practice to ensure representation of perspectives from each practice and, therefore, continued interviews even after thematic saturation was achieved.

Enhanced REP Implementation Process

Figure 1 shows the application of enhanced REP to the Invested in Diabetes study.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 1.

The enhanced Replicating Effective Programs framework for Invested in Diabetes Study planning and adaptations. Abbreviation: SMAs, shared medical appointments.

Preconditions Phase

During this phase, an evidence-based intervention for a targeted patient population that fits with local clinical settings is selected. Intervention materials are adapted based on local stakeholder input. Intervention training, implementation, and outcome measures are refined and “packaged” in a user-friendly way.19,22,29 Before this study, we engaged patients with diabetes, family members, and health care providers in the Boot Camp Translation (BCT) community engagement process.30,31 The BCT objective was to identify preferences about DSME/S in primary care.32 Based on BCT, the study team (including patient stakeholders) identified TTIM as an evidenced-based DSME/S curriculum that fit stakeholder preferences for addressing concurrent medical and mental health needs. The TTIM version selected for Invested in Diabetes was developed for diabetes and co-occurring serious mental illness.10⇓⇓–13 Diabetes distress was selected as the primary patient-centered outcome and glycohemoglobin (HbA1c) as the primary clinical outcome. Cost and sustainability were prioritized as practice-level outcomes.

Preimplementation Phase

The next step is to identify and engage practices in preparing for implementation. After orientation to core elements of the intervention, participating practices identify staff to deliver the intervention. Communication protocols are established between practices and researchers to create dialog regarding further adaptations needed to fit local context. In this study, PBRNs recruited practices with interest and capacity to implement diabetes SMAs. We elicited local stakeholder input to refine the protocol and clarify potential payment mechanisms for diabetes SMAs. We assessed practice context and resources and negotiated adaptations to intervention materials and delivery protocols for fit while retaining fidelity to core elements. Practice staff roles were also determined for intervention delivery as well as operational support.

Implementation Phase

The next phase involves dissemination of the packaged intervention, training in intervention delivery, ongoing technical assistance, resolving implementation barriers, and evaluation and fidelity monitoring. For this study, the research team disseminated the packaged intervention to practice members, including training and recruitment materials (with additional guidance for recruiting peer mentors in the patient-driven condition) and electronic health record templates for documentation. Practice coaches met with practice staff to facilitate implementation tailoring. Practice facilitators assisted in process mapping and identifying potential implementation barriers and adaptations. Communication strategies such as quarterly practice stakeholder calls and scheduled practice coach check-ins were established. Practice coaches scheduled at least 4 facilitation sessions per practice, plus more outreach as needed.

Iterative Process of Adaptations

Adaptations are deliberate modifications made to intervention design or delivery to fit the context or address implementation barriers.33 Informed by preimplementation data and insights from practice coaching sessions, and in collaboration with stakeholder groups, the study team discussed and approved adaptations needed to fit practice capacity, culture, workflows, resources, and systems, without compromising fidelity. We used the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded (FRAME) by Stirman et al.33,34 to codify the type of intervention adaptation, organized by intervention content (curriculum and materials), context (format, setting, population, and personnel), training, and evaluation.

Results

Practice Contextual Characteristics

Practice contextual characteristics are shown in Table 1 (practice-level measures) and Table 2 (provider and staff-level measures). Practices varied along several dimensions related to practice type, size, location, culture, staffing, health information systems, patient demographics and language, and payer mix. Twelve federally qualified health centers and 10 non-federally qualified health centers enrolled. Most practices self-identified as urban/suburban and 3 were rural. Most practices had experience with SMAs (77%), whereas half had experience with diabetes-specific SMAs (50%). All practices had an existing QI team and used an electronic health record. Half of the practices served a Latino population and 1 served a Native American population. There were no differences between study conditions.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Baseline Practice Contextual Characteristics

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Baseline Practice Culture Assessment Scores among All Clinicians and Staff in Participating Practices

Baseline Practice Interviews

Thematic analysis revealed perceived opportunities and barriers to address in preparing for SMA implementation. Practices saw value in opportunities to improve diabetes care using SMAs, as most interviewees reported QI efforts had not adequately improved diabetes metrics. Practices recognized that a team-based approach including behavioral health and other practice resources was especially important:

“I think somehow figuring out how to intertwine behavioral health more in with diabetics because…it can be a very stressful condition for people. As I mentioned earlier, stress contributing to higher cortisol levels, higher blood sugars, generally being unwell” [physician]

“…improve diabetes management and health literacy of patients, empowerment of patients and yeah, the ability for patients to feel able to do these things, like confidence and compassion.” [BHP]

Practices with previous experience delivering SMAs described several past challenges but also interest in trying again, with Invested in Diabetes project implementation support. Patient recruitment and retention was one challenge to address: “The variable attendance, trying to get that buy-in [from patients] and that follow-through…people would be really motivated at first, and then quickly taper off after [initial sessions].” [prescribing provider]

Involving prescribing providers in SMAs—needed to ensure reimbursement but also logistically difficult—was also an anticipated challenge. “We've learned a lot about how to make the SMA structure easier on providers, which I think is challenging, especially when you are dealing with issues of productivity, which is always important, and then, of course, sustainability. Our program—we've pushed the limits of productivity, and we're still not yet sustainable.” [SMA coordinator].

Adaptations to Fit Context

Table 3 shows key differences in personnel, setting, population, and format between the original versus adapted delivery of TTIM to fit context while retaining core elements. TTIM was not originally designed for delivery by a multidisciplinary care team, including a prescribing provider, or for patients to select topic order. Training, facilitation, and intervention materials provided guidance for these features. Table 4 summarizes adaptations made during enhanced REP phases to intervention content, delivery (personnel, format, and setting/population), and trainings. One major adaptation was condensing TTIM from 12 1-hour modules to 6 2-hour modules, given challenges of coordinating visits and patient burden. As many practices prioritized education on stress management (vs serious mental illness), we added an alternative general stress and coping module based on a related intervention.13 Table 5 shows how practice contextual characteristics informed adaptation decision making. The study team also at times negotiated with individual practices based on their specific needs and circumstances to ensure the project's success. Figure 2 provides case vignettes describing how the intervention was adapted in consideration of diverse practice contexts.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 2.

Case vignettes of adaptations to fit practice characteristics. Abbreviations: SMA, shared medical appointments; FQHCs, federally qualified health centers.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

High-Level Intervention Adaptations to Targeted Training in Illness Management Intervention Content and Context for Delivery in Primary Care

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Intervention Content and Delivery Adaptations across the Replicating Effective Programs Phases

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5.

Intervention Content, Delivery, and Training: Adaptations Fit to Context

Significant adaptations involved personnel delivering SMAs. Several practices had concerns about involving prescribing providers at every session given scheduling challenges and patient copay burden. Not all practices determined they needed reimbursement from prescribing provider encounters. The resulting adaptation was to support practices in determining how many and in which sessions to include prescribing providers, while recommending their involvement at minimum during the first and last sessions. Similarly, the health educator role was expanded based on staffing needs to include nutritionists, medical assistants, and community health workers (with adequate supervision), whereas our initial protocol called for a registered nurse, health educator, or certified diabetes educator. BHPs were ineligible for the health educator role, despite some requests for this adaptation, as BHP involvement is a core distinguishing element of the patient-driven condition. BHP eligibility for the patient-driven condition also expanded. Although people filling the BHP role were predominantly masters-level licensed clinical social workers and doctoral-level licensed clinical psychologists, some had a Bachelor's degree in social work and psychology, were licensed family therapists, or were going through training to be a BHP, either through education or on-the-job training. As the patient-driven condition also includes a peer mentor, the study's patient stakeholders developed peer mentor selection criteria and recruitment materials for use by practices.

We adapted practice training for diabetes SMAs. For health educators, training first includes a comprehensive review of the TTIM instructor's manual, as with prior TTIM training, but was modified to further cover group facilitation skills, how to involve the peer mentor and BHP (for the patient-driven condition), and role playing sessions. To reduce time and travel burden based on feedback from initial training sessions, we shortened training from 8 to 6 hours and offered choices of in-person locations or video conferencing and the option to complete training on a single day or split over 2 days. For prescribing providers, a 1-hour training provides a brief review of the TTIM curriculum and guidance on documentation to support reimbursement. Peer mentors receive a 5-hour training that focuses on the peer support role, with materials adapted from Peers for Progress35 and TTIM skill-building exercises for goal setting, action planning, glucose monitoring, problem solving, and communication skills to prepare peer mentors for demonstrations to SMA patients.

Discussion

Prior research has often overlooked how to best adapt interventions for real-world health care settings, resulting in a limited uptake of evidence-based practices.36 Furthermore, external validity limitations have often resulted in evidence-based interventions lacking alignment with practice needs and priorities, such as yielding a return on investment and minimizing burden.36 Pragmatic trials can address these limitations, balancing equally important external and internal validity concerns.37 In turn, pragmatic trials should report contextual factors that may influence replication and relevance of research findings36—for which D&I frameworks may be useful toward “designing for dissemination and sustainability.” In a pragmatic trial among PBRN-affiliated primary care practices, we used the enhanced REP framework22 to guide the process of engaging practices in identifying and negotiating a variety of adaptations needed to fit practice contextual factors expected to influence adoption, implementation, and sustainability of diabetes SMAs.

Our findings showed considerable practice context variability across several dimensions, and corresponding adaptations were made to intervention content (eg, general stress and coping), delivery (eg, fewer sessions), training (eg, group facilitation techniques), and facilitation (eg, tailored technical assistance depending on prior SMA experience). Similar adaptations to reduce patient barriers and encourage practice-level buy in were reported by Kowalski et al.8 Adaptations were made through an iterative process in which patient and practice stakeholders informed intervention content, format, and delivery before and during initial implementation. Practice coaches also identified opportunities for adaptations at individual practices, jointly maintaining fidelity to protocols and supporting implementation and sustainability for each practice—an important function of practice facilitation.38,39 Concurrently, planned adaptations and explicit discussions and decisions relative to core elements of the study protocol helped to ensure fidelity and rigor (ie, adaptations were intended to be “fidelity consistent”).40,41 FRAME was a useful framework for codifying and categorizing the type of adaptations.33,34 Practices are likely to make additional unplanned, fidelity-inconsistent adaptations and will be evaluated separately.33,42

Limitations and Conclusions

The specific adaptations made to SMAs for this project may not generalize to other contexts, as the practices that participated in this project are PBRN members with existing behavioral health and health education resources. However, the primary contribution of this article concerns the process for adaptation to context—whatever that context may be. In summary, this project illustrates the use of mixed methods and D&I frameworks, namely, the REP framework to guide the process of adaptation of an intervention to fit context and FRAME to describe and categorize adaptations—expected to simultaneously advance science and support potential for future uptake—as is the goal of pragmatic trials.43

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the important effort and commitment of the patient, practice, and community stakeholders who participated in the engagement work that led to the conceptualization of this study and those who continue to participate as patient representatives for the Invested in Diabetes study. Study team members who also contributed to the work described in this manuscript include Dennis Gurfinkel, Robyn Wearner, Miriam Dickinson, Jodi Summers Holtrop, and Patrick Hosokawa. We also extend our gratitude to our amazing patient stakeholders, Ramona Koren, Tom Carrigan, Barbara Clay, Jim and Jo Smith, David Downey, and Sharon Trujillo. Your contributions to the success of this project are invaluable. Thank you to the participating practices for investing in diabetes care and research; your contributions to society are substantial.

Notes

  • This article was externally peer reviewed.

  • Conflict of Interest: Dr. Sajatovic has had research grant funding from Nuromate, Otsuka, Alkermes, Janssen, International Society for Bipolar Disorders, Reuter Foundation, Woodruff Foundation, and Reinberger Foundation. She has been a consultant to Bracket, Otsuka, Janssen, Neurocrine, Health Analytics, Frontline Medical Communications and has received book/publication royalties from Springer Press, Johns Hopkins University Press, Oxford Press and UpToDate. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

  • Funding: Research reported in this manuscript was funded through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) award (IHS-1609-36322). The views, statements, and opinions presented in this work are solely the responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the PCORI, its Board of Governors or Methodology Committee.

  • To see this article online, please go to: http://jabfm.org/content/33/5/716.full.

  • Received for publication January 30, 2020.
  • Revision received June 12, 2020.
  • Accepted for publication June 17, 2020.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Riley WT,
    2. Glasgow RE,
    3. Etheredge L,
    4. Abernethy AP
    . Rapid, responsive, relevant (R3) research: a call for a rapid learning health research enterprise. Clin Transl Med 2013;2:10.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. Kessler R,
    2. Glasgow RE
    . A proposal to speed translation of healthcare research into practice: dramatic change is needed. Am J Prev Med 2011;40:637–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Loudon K,
    2. Treweek S,
    3. Sullivan F,
    4. Donnan P,
    5. Thorpe KE,
    6. Zwarenstein M
    . The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ 2015;350:h2147.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Ford I,
    2. Norrie J
    . Pragmatic trials. N Engl J Med 2016;375:454–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Glasgow RE,
    2. Chambers D
    . Developing robust, sustainable, implementation systems using rigorous, rapid and relevant science. Clin Transl Sci 2012;5:48–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Treweek S,
    2. Zwarenstein M
    . Making trials matter: pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability. Trials 2009;10:37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Kirsh SR,
    2. Lawrence RH,
    3. Aron DC
    . Tailoring an intervention to the context and system redesign related to the intervention: a case study of implementing shared medical appointments for diabetes. Implement Sci 2008;3:34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Kowalski CP,
    2. Veeser M,
    3. Heisler M
    . Formative evaluation and adaptation of pre-and early implementation of diabetes shared medical appointments to maximize sustainability and adoption. BMC Fam Pract 2018;19:109.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Kwan BM,
    2. Dickinson LM,
    3. Glasgow RE,
    4. et al
    . The Invested in Diabetes Study Protocol: a cluster randomized pragmatic trial comparing standardized and patient-driven diabetes shared medical appointments. Trials 2020;21:65.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Sajatovic M,
    2. Dawson NV,
    3. Perzynski AT,
    4. et al
    . Best practices: optimizing care for people with serious mental illness and comorbid diabetes. Psychiatr Serv 2011;62:1001–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Sajatovic M,
    2. Gunzler DD,
    3. Kanuch SW,
    4. et al
    . a 60-week prospective rct of a self-management intervention for individuals with serious mental illness and diabetes mellitus. Psychiatr Serv 2017;68:883–90.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. McKibbin CL,
    2. Patterson TL,
    3. Norman G,
    4. et al
    . A lifestyle intervention for older schizophrenia patients with diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. Schizophr Res 2006;86:36–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Bauer MS,
    2. McBride L
    . Structured group psychotherapy for bipolar disorder: the life goals program. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Springer Publishing Co.; 2003.
  14. 14.↵
    1. Heintzman J,
    2. Gold R,
    3. Krist A,
    4. Crosson J,
    5. Likumahuwa S,
    6. DeVoe JE
    . Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are promising laboratories for conducting dissemination and implementation research. J Am Board Fam Med 2014;27:759–62.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Andrews JE,
    2. Pearce KA,
    3. Ireson C,
    4. Love MM
    . Information-seeking behaviors of practitioners in a primary care practice-based research network (PBRN). J Med Libr Assoc 2005;93:206–12.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Cohen DJ,
    2. Crabtree BF,
    3. Etz RS,
    4. et al
    . Fidelity versus flexibility: translating evidence-based research into practice. Am J Prev Med 2008;35:S381–389.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Dickinson LM,
    2. Beaty B,
    3. Fox C,
    4. et al
    . Pragmatic cluster randomized trials using covariate constrained randomization: a method for practice-based research networks (PBRNs). J Am Board Fam Med 2015;28:663–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Holtrop JS,
    2. Rabin BA,
    3. Glasgow RE
    . Dissemination and implementation science in primary care research and practice: contributions and opportunities. J Am Board Fam Med 2018;31:466–78.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Kilbourne AM,
    2. Neumann MS,
    3. Pincus HA,
    4. Bauer MS,
    5. Stall R
    . Implementing evidence-based interventions in health care: application of the replicating effective programs framework. Implement Sci 2007;2:42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Kitson AL,
    2. Rycroft-Malone J,
    3. Harvey G,
    4. McCormack B,
    5. Seers K,
    6. Titchen A
    . Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges. Implement Sci 2008;3:1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Stetler CB,
    2. Damschroder LJ,
    3. Helfrich CD,
    4. Hagedorn HJ
    . A guide for applying a revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation. Implement Sci 2011;6:99.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Kilbourne AM,
    2. Neumann MS,
    3. Waxmonsky J,
    4. et al
    . Public-academic partnerships: evidence-based implementation: the role of sustained community-based practice and research partnerships. Psychiatr Serv 2012;63:205–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Dickinson WP,
    2. Dickinson LM,
    3. Nutting PA,
    4. et al
    . Practice facilitation to improve diabetes care in primary care: a report from the EPIC randomized clinical trial. Ann Fam Med 2014;12:8–16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Jortberg BT,
    2. Fernald DH,
    3. Hessler DM,
    4. et al
    . Practice characteristics associated with better implementation of patient self-management support. J Am Board Fam Med 2019;32:329–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Ohman-Strickland PA,
    2. John Orzano A,
    3. Nutting PA,
    4. et al
    . Measuring organizational attributes of primary care practices: development of a new instrument. Health Serv Res 2007;42:1257–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Crabtree BF,
    2. Miller WL
    . Doing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1999.
  27. 27.↵
    1. Addison RB
    . Grounded hermeneutic research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1999.
  28. 28.↵
    1. Miles MB,
    2. Huberman AM,
    3. Saldaña J
    . Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. 3rd. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2014.
  29. 29.↵
    1. Waxmonsky J,
    2. Kilbourne AM,
    3. Goodrich DE,
    4. et al
    . Enhanced fidelity to treatment for bipolar disorder: results from a randomized controlled implementation trial. Psychiatr Serv 2014;65:81–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Nease DE Jr..,
    2. Daly JM,
    3. Dickinson LM,
    4. et al
    . Impact of a boot camp translation intervention on self-management support in primary care: a report from the INSTTEPP trial and meta-LARC consortium. J Patient Cent Res Rev 2018;5:256–66.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Westfall JM,
    2. Zittleman L,
    3. Felzien M,
    4. et al
    . Reinventing the wheel of medical evidence: how the boot camp translation process is making gains. Health Aff (Millwood) 2016;35:613–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Kwan BM,
    2. Jortberg B,
    3. Warman MK,
    4. et al
    . Stakeholder engagement in diabetes self-management: patient preference for peer support and other insights. Fam Pract 2017;34:358–63.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    1. Stirman SW,
    2. Miller CJ,
    3. Toder K,
    4. Calloway A
    . Development of a framework and coding system for modifications and adaptations of evidence-based interventions. Implement Sci 2013;8:65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Stirman SW,
    2. Baumann AA,
    3. Miller CJ
    . The FRAME: an expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions. Implement Sci 2019;14:58.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    Peers for Progress. Take action: train peer supporters. Available from: http://peersforprogress.org/take-action/train-peer-supporters. Accessed January 29, 2020.
  36. 36.↵
    1. Huebschmann AG,
    2. Leavitt IM,
    3. Glasgow RE
    . Making health research matter: a call to increase attention to external validity. Annu Rev Public Health 2019;40:45–63.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    1. Kwan BM,
    2. Sills MR,
    3. Graham D,
    4. et al
    . Stakeholder engagement in a patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measure implementation: a report from the SAFTINet practice-based research network (PBRN). J Am Board Fam Med 2016;29:102–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Baskerville NB,
    2. Liddy C,
    3. Hogg W
    . Systematic review and meta-analysis of practice facilitation within primary care settings. Ann Fam Med 2012;10:63–74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Harvey G,
    2. Lynch E
    . Enabling continuous quality improvement in practice: the role and contribution of facilitation. Front Public Health 2017;5:27.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    1. La Bash H,
    2. Galovski T,
    3. Stirman SW
    . Adapting evidence-based psychotherapies while maintaining fidelity. Curr Treat Options Psych 2019;6:198–209.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    1. Miller CJ,
    2. Wiltsey-Stirman S,
    3. Baumann AA
    . Iterative Decision-making for Evaluation of Adaptations (IDEA): A decision tree for balancing adaptation, fidelity, and intervention impact. J Community Psychol 2020;48:1163–77.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    1. Escoffery C,
    2. Lebow-Skelley E,
    3. Haardoerfer R,
    4. et al
    . A systematic review of adaptations of evidence-based public health interventions globally. Implement Sci 2018;13:125.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Brownson RC,
    2. Colditz GA,
    3. Proctor EK
    1. Owen NE,
    2. Goode A,
    3. Sugiyama TA,
    4. et al
    . Designing for dissemination in chronic disease prevention and management. In: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK, eds. Dissemination and implementation research in health: translating science to practice. New York, NY: Oxford Scholarship Online; 2017.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 33 (5)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 33, Issue 5
September/October 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Adapting Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments to Fit Context for Practice-Based Research (PBR)
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
15 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Adapting Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments to Fit Context for Practice-Based Research (PBR)
Bethany M. Kwan, Jenny Rementer, Natalie D. Ritchie, Andrea L. Nederveld, Phoutdavone Phimphasone-Brady, Martha Sajatovic, Donald E. Nease, Jeanette A. Waxmonsky
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Sep 2020, 33 (5) 716-727; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2020.05.200049

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Adapting Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments to Fit Context for Practice-Based Research (PBR)
Bethany M. Kwan, Jenny Rementer, Natalie D. Ritchie, Andrea L. Nederveld, Phoutdavone Phimphasone-Brady, Martha Sajatovic, Donald E. Nease, Jeanette A. Waxmonsky
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Sep 2020, 33 (5) 716-727; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2020.05.200049
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Limitations and Conclusions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The Psychosocial Needs of Patients Participating in Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments
  • The Psychosocial Needs of Patients Participating in Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments
  • The Changing Face of Primary Care Research and Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs) in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Evaluating Pragmatism of Lung Cancer Screening Randomized Trials with the PRECIS-2 Tool
  • Perceptions and Preferences for Defining Biosimilar Products in Prescription Drug Promotion
  • Successful Implementation of Integrated Behavioral Health
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Comparative Effectiveness Research
  • Diabetes Mellitus
  • Evidence-Based Medicine
  • Implementation Science
  • Mental Health
  • Motivation
  • Patient Care Team
  • Practice-Based Research
  • Primary Health Care
  • Shared Medical Appointments
  • Stakeholder Participation
  • Surveys and Questionnaires

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire