Tailoring Implementation Strategies for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculator Adoption in Primary Care Clinics

References

1. 1.↵
   1. McGlynn EA,
   2. Asch SM,
   3. Adams J,
   4. et al

   . The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2635–45.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Mangione-Smith R,
   2. DeCristofaro AH,
   3. Setodji CM,
   4. et al

   . The quality of ambulatory care delivered to children in the United States. N Engl J Med 2007;357:1515–23.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. Levine DM,
   2. Linder JA,
   3. Landon BE

   . The quality of outpatient care delivered to adults in the United States, 2002 to 2013. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176:1778–90.

   OpenUrl
4. 4.↵
   1. Murphy SL,
   2. Kochanek KD,
   3. Xu J,
   4. Arias E

   . Mortality in the United States, 2014. NCHS Data Brief 2015:229:1–8. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db229.pdf.
5. 5.↵
   1. Shelley D,
   2. Blechter B,
   3. Siman N,
   4. et al

   . Quality of cardiovascular disease care in small urban practices. Ann Fam Med 2018;16:S21–S28.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   1. Yang Q,
   2. Cogswell ME,
   3. Flanders WD,
   4. et al

   . Trends in cardiovascular health metrics and associations with all-cause and CVD mortality among US adults. JAMA 2012;307:1273–83.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Frieden TR,
   2. Berwick DM

   . The “Million Hearts” initiative—preventing heart attacks and strokes. N Engl J Med 2011;365:e27.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   Million Hearts 2022: snapshots of progress. Million Hearts. Updated September 2018. Accessed February 14, 2022. Available from: https://millionhearts.hhs.gov/files/MH-Snapshots-of-Progress-2022-508.pdf.
9. 9.↵
   1. Cohen DJ,
   2. Dorr DA,
   3. Knierim K,
   4. et al

   . Primary care practices’ abilities and challenges in using electronic health record data for quality improvement. Health Aff (Millwood) 2018;37:635–43.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
10. 10.↵
    1. Parchman ML,
    2. Anderson ML,
    3. Coleman K,
    4. et al

    . Assessing quality improvement capacity in primary care practices. BMC Fam Pract 2019;20:103.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
11. 11.↵
    1. Meyers D,
    2. Miller T,
    3. Genevro J,
    4. et al

    . EvidenceNOW: balancing primary care implementation and implementation research. Ann Fam Med 2018;16:S5–S11.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Parchman ML,
    2. Fagnan LJ,
    3. Dorr DA,
    4. et al

    . Study protocol for “Healthy Hearts Northwest”: a 2 × 2 randomized factorial trial to build quality improvement capacity in primary care. Implement Sci 2016;11:138.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
13. 13.↵
    1. Baldwin LM,
    2. Fischer MA,
    3. Powell J,
    4. et al

    . Virtual educational outreach intervention in primary care based on the principles of academic detailing. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2018;38:269–75.

    OpenUrl
14. 14.↵
    1. Tuzzio L,
    2. O'Meara ES,
    3. Holden E,
    4. et al

    . Barriers to implementing cardiovascular risk calculation in primary care: alignment with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Am J Prev Med 2021;60:250–7.

    OpenUrl
15. 15.↵
    1. Proctor EK,
    2. Powell BJ,
    3. McMillen JC

    . Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci 2013;8:139.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Russell G,
    2. Lane R,
    3. Parker S

    , et al. Preventive evidence into practice: what factors matter in a facilitation intervention to prevent vascular disease in family practice? BMC Fam Pract 2019;20:113.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
17. 17.↵
    1. Powell BJ,
    2. Beidas RS,
    3. Lewis CC,
    4. et al

    . Methods to improve the selection and tailoring of implementation strategies. J Behav Health Serv Res 2017;44:177–94.

    OpenUrlPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Lewis CC,
    2. Scott K,
    3. Marriott BR

    . A methodology for generating a tailored implementation blueprint: an exemplar from a youth residential setting. Implement Sci 2018;13:68.

    OpenUrlPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Jäger C,
    2. Steinhäuser J,
    3. Freund T,
    4. et al

    . Process evaluation of five tailored programs to improve the implementation of evidence-based recommendations for chronic conditions in primary care. Implement Sci 2016;11:123.

    OpenUrlPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Wensing M

    . The Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases (TICD) project: introduction and main findings. Implement Sci 2017;12:5.

    OpenUrlPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Baker R,
    2. Camosso-Stefinovic J,
    3. Gillies C,
    4. et al

    . Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015(4):CD005470.
22. 22.↵
    1. Baker R,
    2. Camosso-Stefinovic J,
    3. Gillies C,
    4. et al

    . Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010(3):CD005470.
23. 23.↵
    1. Fernandez ME,
    2. Ten Hoor GA,
    3. van Lieshout S,
    4. et al

    . Implementation mapping: using intervention mapping to develop implementation strategies. Front Public Health 2019;7:158.

    OpenUrl
24. 24.↵
    1. Bartholomew LK,
    2. Parcel GS,
    3. Kok G,
    4. Gottlieb NH

    . Planning health promotion programs: an intervention mapping approach. Jossey-Bass; 2006.
25. 25.↵
    1. Kane M,
    2. Trochim WM

    . Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. SAGE; 2007.
26. 26.↵
    1. Farley K,
    2. Thompson C,
    3. Hanbury A,
    4. Chambers D

    . Exploring the feasibility of conjoint analysis as a tool for prioritizing innovations for implementation. Implement Sci 2013;8:56.

    OpenUrl
27. 27.↵
    1. Hovmand PS

    . Group model building and community-based system dynamics process. In: Community-Based System Dynamics Springer;2014:17–30.
28. 28.↵
    1. Parchman ML,
    2. Anderson ML,
    3. Dorr DA,
    4. et al

    . A randomized trial of external practice support to improve cardiovascular risk factors in primary care. Ann Fam Med 2019;17:S40–S49.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
29. 29.↵
    Consolidated framework for implementation research. CFIR. 2020. Accessed February 14, 2022. Available from: https://cfirguide.org/.
30. 30.↵
    1. Powell BJ,
    2. Waltz TJ,
    3. Chinman MJ,
    4. et al

    . A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci 2015;10:21.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Powell BJ,
    2. Fernandez ME,
    3. Williams NJ,
    4. et al

    . Enhancing the impact of implementation strategies in healthcare: a research agenda. Front Public Health 2019;7:3.

    OpenUrl
32. 32.↵
    1. Wensing M,
    2. Bosch M,
    3. Grol R

    . Knowledge translation in health care: moving from evidence to practice. Wiley-Blackwell;2009.
33. 33.↵
    1. Waltz TJ,
    2. Powell BJ,
    3. Fernández ME,
    4. Abadie B,
    5. Damschroder LJ

    . Choosing implementation strategies to address contextual barriers: diversity in recommendations and future directions. Implement Sci 2019;14:42.

    OpenUrlPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Brownson RC,
    2. Kumanyika SK,
    3. Kreuter MW,
    4. Haire-Joshu D

    . Implementation science should give higher priority to health equity. Implement Sci 2021;16:28.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Baumann AA,
    2. Cabassa LJ

    . Reframing implementation science to address inequities in healthcare delivery. BMC Health Serv Res 2020;20:190.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Tomoaia-Cotisel A,
    2. Scammon DL,
    3. Waitzman NJ,
    4. et al

    . Context matters: the experience of 14 research teams in systematically reporting contextual factors important for practice change. Ann Fam Med 2013;11:S115–23.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
37. 37.↵
    1. Tambor E,
    2. Moloney R,
    3. Greene SM

    . One size does not fit all: Insights for engaging front-line clinicians in pragmatic clinical trials. Learn Health Syst 2020;5:e10248.

    OpenUrl