Using Stakeholder Values to Promote Implementation of an Evidence-Based Mobile Health Intervention for Addiction Treatment in Primary Care Settings

Abstract

BackgroundMost evidence-based practices (EBPs) do not find their way into clinical use, including evidence-based mobile health (mHealth) technologies. The literature offers implementers little practical guidance for successfully integrating mHealth into health care systems.ObjectiveThe goal of this research was to describe a novel decision-framing model that gives implementers a method of eliciting the considerations of different stakeholder groups when they decide whether to implement an EBP.MethodsThe decision-framing model can be generally applied to EBPs, but was applied in this case to an mHealth system (Seva) for patients with addiction. The model builds from key insights in behavioral economics and game theory. The model systematically identifies, using an inductive process, the perceived gains and losses of different stakeholder groups when they consider adopting a new intervention. The model was constructed retrospectively in a parent implementation research trial that introduced Seva to 268 patients in 3 US primary care clinics. Individual and group interviews were conducted to elicit stakeholder considerations from 6 clinic managers, 17 clinicians, and 6 patients who were involved in implementing Seva. Considerations were used to construct decision frames that trade off the perceived value of adopting Seva versus maintaining the status quo from each stakeholder group’s perspective. The face validity of the decision-framing model was assessed by soliciting feedback from the stakeholders whose input was used to build it.ResultsPrimary considerations related to implementing Seva were identified for each stakeholder group. Clinic managers perceived the greatest potential gain to be better care for patients and the greatest potential loss to be cost (ie, staff time, sustainability, and opportunity cost to implement Seva). All clinical staff considered time their foremost consideration—primarily in negative terms (eg, cognitive burden associated with learning a new system) but potentially in positive terms (eg, if Seva could automate functions done manually). Patients considered safety (anonymity, privacy, and coming from a trusted source) to be paramount. Though payers were not interviewed directly, clinic managers judged cost to be most important to payers—whether Seva could reduce total care costs or had reimbursement mechanisms available. This model will be tested prospectively in a forthcoming mHealth implementation trial for its ability to predict mHealth adoption. Overall, the results suggest that implementers proactively address the cost and burden of implementation and seek to promote long-term sustainability.ConclusionsThis paper presents a model implementers may use to elicit stakeholders’ considerations when deciding to adopt a new technology, considerations that may then be used to adapt the intervention and tailor implementation, potentially increasing the likelihood of implementation success.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01963234; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01963234 (Archi...

Implementation strategies for digital mental health interventions in health care settings.

“…Practitioners may also be concerned about what data are captured by the DMHI and whether the privacy and security of the DMHI aligns with regulations in their health care setting (Hermes, Burrone, et al, 2019). Thus, implementation strategies may include aligning practitioners on the advantages of implementing the DMHI (e.g., Quanbeck, 2019) and providing information about data security protections for the DMHI, such as by conducting local consensus discussions and educational meetings, as well as offering presentations about and demonstrations of the DMHI.…”

Extending analytic methods for economic evaluation in implementation science

“…is needed to consider the relevant costs and benefits associated with different courses of action, and whether and how EBI implementation and selected strategies will fit within their priorities and constraints. Stakeholder biases and preferences may affect the perceived usefulness of EBIs or implementation strategies [ 36 ]. For example, in a study about shared decision-making within cancer care, stakeholder interviews revealed widespread concerns about the likelihood of losing revenue as a substantial implementation barrier [ 6 ].…”

Implementation science issues in understanding, collecting, and using cost estimates: a multi-stakeholder perspective

“…Zimmerman et al, for example, have leveraged the concept of bounded rationality as a foundation on which they have built comprehensive simulation models to aid healthcare stakeholders in providing treatment services for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder [38]. These and other research efforts [12,39] aim to demonstrate the relevance and practical utility of behavioral economic concepts such as bounded rationality for implementation research and, in particular when considering the decision-making approaches and perspectives of different stakeholders.…”

“…In particular, the societal perspective typically used for cost-effectiveness analysis in healthcare aggregates diverse stakeholder perspectives into a single, global perspective, but the accrual of value is often unevenly distributed across stakeholder groups. Each of these stakeholder groups, however, has different perspectives and different values on which they base economic decisions [12].…”