RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Tracking modifications to implementation strategies
a case study from SNaP - a hybrid type III randomized controlled trial to scale up integrated systems navigation and psychosocial counseling for PWID with HIV in Vietnam
Nguyen, M. X., Bartels, S. M., Akiba, C. F., Sripaipan, T., Nong, H. T., Dang, L. T., Tran, H. V., Hoang, V. T., Le, G. M., Go, V. F., Miller, W. C., & Powell, B. J. (2024). Tracking modifications to implementation strategies: a case study from SNaP - a hybrid type III randomized controlled trial to scale up integrated systems navigation and psychosocial counseling for PWID with HIV in Vietnam. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 24(1), 249. Article 249. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02367-3
INTRODUCTION: Evaluation of implementation strategies is core to implementation trials, but implementation strategies often deviate from the original plan to adjust to the real-world conditions. The optimal approach to track modifications to implementation strategies is unclear, especially in low-resource settings. Using data from an implementation trial for people who inject drugs (PWID) with HIV in Vietnam, we describe the tracking of implementation strategy modifications and present findings of this process.
METHODS: SNaP (Systems Navigation and Psychosocial Counseling) is a hybrid type-III effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial aiming to scale up the evidence-based intervention, integrated systems navigation and psychosocial counseling, for PWID with HIV in Vietnam. Forty-two HIV testing sites were randomized 1:1 to a standard or tailored arm. While the standard arm (SA) received a uniform package of strategies, implementation strategies for the tailored arm (TA) were tailored to address specific needs of each site. The central research team also met monthly with the TA to document how their tailored strategies were implemented over time. Five components were involved in the tracking process: describing the planned strategies; tracking strategy use; monitoring barriers and solutions; describing modifications; and identifying and describing any additional strategies.
RESULTS: Our approach allowed us to closely track the modifications to implementation strategies in the tailored arms every month. TA sites originally identified 27 implementation strategies prior to implementation. During implementation, five strategies were dropped by four sites and two new strategies were added to twelve sites. Modifications of five strategies occurred at four sites to accommodate their changing needs and resources. Difficulties related to the COVID-19 pandemic, low number of participants recruited, high workload at the clinic, lack of resources for HIV testing and high staff turnover were among barriers of implementing the strategies. A few challenges to tracking modifications were noted, including the considerable amount of time and efforts needed as well as the lack of motivation from site staff to track and keep written documentations of modifications.
CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the feasibility of a systematic approach to tracking implementation strategies for a large-scale implementation trial in a low-resource setting. This process could be further enhanced and replicated in similar settings to balance the rigor and feasibility of implementation strategy tracking. Our findings can serve as additional guidelines for future researchers planning to report and track modifications to implementation strategies in large, complex trials.
