Cited by 52Health Policy Implementation ScienceHepatitis C virus researchClinical practice guidelines implementation

Longitudinal assessment of the association between implementation strategy use and the uptake of hepatitis C treatment: Year 2

Open access
Rogal, Shari S., Yakovchenko, Vera, Waltz, Thomas J., Powell, Byron J., Gonzalez, Rachel, Park, Angela, Chartier, Maggie, Ross, David +4 more·2019·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To increase the uptake of evidence-based treatments for hepatitis C (HCV), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) established the Hepatitis Innovation Team (HIT) Collaborative. Teams of providers were tasked with choosing implementation strategies to improve HCV care. The aim of the current evaluation was to assess how site-level implementation strategies were associated with HCV treatment initiation and how the use of implementation strategies and their association with HCV treatment changed over time. METHODS: A key HCV provider at each VA site (N = 130) was asked in two consecutive fiscal years (FYs) to complete an online survey examining the use of 73 implementation strategies organized into nine clusters as described by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. The number of Veterans initiating treatment for HCV, or "treatment starts," at each site was captured using national data. Providers reported whether the use of each implementation strategy was due to the HIT Collaborative. RESULTS: Of 130 sites, 80 (62%) responded in Year 1 (FY15) and 105 (81%) responded in Year 2 (FY16). Respondents endorsed a median of 27 (IQR19-38) strategies in Year 2. The strategies significantly more likely to be chosen in Year 2 included tailoring strategies to deliver HCV care, promoting adaptability, sharing knowledge between sites, and using mass media. The total number of treatment starts was significantly positively correlated with total number of strategies endorsed in both years. In Years 1 and 2, respectively, 28 and 26 strategies were significantly associated with treatment starts; 12 strategies overlapped both years, 16 were unique to Year 1, and 14 were unique to Year 2. Strategies significantly associated with treatment starts shifted between Years 1 and 2. Pre-implementation strategies in the "training/educating," "interactive assistance," and "building stakeholder interrelationships" clusters were more likely to be significantly associated with treatment starts in Year 1, while strategies in the "evaluative and iterative" and "adapting and tailoring" clusters were more likely to be associated with treatment starts in Year 2. Approximately half of all strategies were attributed to the HIT Collaborative. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that measuring implementation strategies over time is a useful way to catalog implementation of an evidence-based practice over time and across settings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13012-019-0881-7

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rogal, S. S., Yakovchenko, V., Waltz, T. J., Powell, B. J., Gonzalez, R., Park, A., Chartier, M., Ross, D., Morgan, T. R., Kirchner, J. E., Proctor, E. K., & Chinman, M. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital (US)
  • Eastern Michigan University (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • VA Long Beach Healthcare System (US)
  • Veterans Health Administration (US)
  • Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • RAND Corporation (US)
Corresponding author
Rogal, Shari S.
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2019-04-08
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
36-36
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2946156476
Cited by
52
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5
FWCI
6.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • HIV, Hepatitis and Related Conditions Programs (.)
  • AHRQ (K12 HS019461)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Hepatitis C virus research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
hepatitis C, HCV treatment uptake, implementation strategies, veterans, evidence-based practice implementation, Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change, treatment initiation, quality improvement, tailoring, adaptability, knowledge sharing, mass media, education and training
MeSH terms
Antiviral Agents, Hepatitis C, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Program Evaluation, Evidence-Based Medicine, Medication Adherence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review