Implementing the MOVE! Weight-Management Program in the Veterans Health Administration, 2007-2010: A Qualitative Study

Department of Health Policy and Management, CB 7411, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7411, USA.
Preventing chronic disease (Impact Factor: 1.96). 01/2012; 9:E16. DOI: 10.5888/pcd9.110127
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT One-third of US veterans receiving care at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical facilities are obese and, therefore, at higher risk for developing multiple chronic diseases. To address this problem, the VHA designed and nationally disseminated an evidence-based weight-management program (MOVE!). The objective of this study was to examine the organizational factors that aided or inhibited the implementation of MOVE! in 10 VHA medical facilities.
Using a multiple, holistic case study design, we conducted 68 interviews with medical center program coordinators, physicians formally appointed as program champions, managers directly responsible for overseeing the program, clinicians from the program's multidisciplinary team, and primary care physicians identified by program coordinators as local opinion leaders. Qualitative data analysis involved coding, memorandum writing, and construction of data displays.
Organizational readiness for change and having an innovation champion were most consistently the 2 factors associated with MOVE! implementation. Other organizational factors, such as management support and resource availability, were barriers to implementation or exerted mixed effects on implementation. Barriers did not prevent facilities from implementing MOVE! However, they were obstacles that had to be overcome, worked around, or accepted as limits on the program's scope or scale.
Policy-directed implementation of clinical weight-management programs in health care facilities is challenging, especially when no new resources are available. Instituting powerful, mutually reinforcing organizational policies and practices may be necessary for consistent, high-quality implementation.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It has been noted that implementation climate is positively associated with implementation effectiveness. However, issues surrounding the measurement of implementation climate, or the extent to which organizational members perceive that innovation use is expected, supported and rewarded by their organization remain. Specifically, it is unclear whether implementation climate can be measured as a global construct, whether individual or group-referenced items should be used, and whether implementation climate can be assessed at the group or organizational level. This research includes two cross-sectional studies with data collected via surveys at the individual level. The first study assessed the implementation climate perceptions of physicians participating in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP), and the second study assessed the perceptions of children's behavioral health clinicians implementing a treatment innovation. To address if implementation climate is a global construct, we used confirmatory factor analysis. To address how implementation climate should be measured and at what level, we followed a five-step framework outlined by van Mierlo and colleagues. This framework includes exploratory factor analysis and correlations to assess differences between individual and group-referenced items and intraclass correlations, interrater agreements, and exploratory factor analysis to determine if implementation climate can be assessed at the organizational level. The confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that implementation climate is a global construct consisting of items related to expectations, support and rewards. There are mixed results, however, as to whether implementation climate should be measured using individual or group-referenced items. In our first study, where physicians were geographically dispersed and practice independently, there were no differences based on the type of items used, and implementation climate was an individual level construct. However, in the second study, in which clinicians practice in a central location and interact more frequently, group-referenced items may be appropriate. In addition, implementation climate could be considered an organizational level construct. The results are context-specific. Researchers should carefully consider the study setting when measuring implementation climate. In addition, more opportunities are needed to validate this measure and understand how well it predicts and explains implementation effectiveness.
    Implementation Science 04/2014; 9(1):46. DOI:10.1186/1748-5908-9-46 · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The failure rates for implementing complex innovations in healthcare organizations are high. Estimates range from 30% to 90% depending on the scope of the organizational change involved, the definition of failure, and the criteria to judge it. The innovation implementation framework offers a promising approach to examine the organizational factors that determine effective implementation. To date, the utility of this framework in a healthcare setting has been limited to qualitative studies and/or group level analyses. Therefore, the goal of this study was to quantitatively examine this framework among individual participants in the National Cancer Institute¿s Community Clinical Oncology Program using structural equation modeling.Methods We examined the innovation implementation framework using structural equation modeling (SEM) among 481 physician participants in the National Cancer Institute¿s Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP). The data sources included the CCOP Annual Progress Reports, surveys of CCOP physician participants and administrators, and the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile.ResultsOverall the final model fit well. Our results demonstrated that not only did perceptions of implementation climate have a statistically significant direct effect on implementation effectiveness, but physicians¿ perceptions of implementation climate also mediated the relationship between organizational implementation policies and practices (IPP) and enrollment (p <0.05). In addition, physician factors such as CCOP PI status, age, radiological oncologists, and non-oncologist specialists significantly influenced enrollment as well as CCOP organizational size and structure, which had indirect effects on implementation effectiveness through IPP and implementation climateConclusions Overall, our results quantitatively confirmed the main relationship postulated in the innovation implementation framework between IPP, implementation climate, and implementation effectiveness among individual physicians. This finding is important, as although the model has been discussed within healthcare organizations before, the studies have been predominately qualitative in nature and/or at the organizational level. In addition, our findings have practical applications. Managers looking to increase implementation effectiveness of an innovation should focus on creating an environment that physicians perceive as encouraging implementation. In addition, managers should consider instituting specific organizational IPP aimed at increasing positive perceptions of implementation climate. For example, IPP should include specific expectations, support, and rewards for innovation use.
    BMC Health Services Research 01/2015; 15(1):6. DOI:10.1186/s12913-014-0657-3 · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Zidarov D, Poissant L, Sicotte C

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 26, 2014