Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Introduction: The Veterans Health Administration initiated implementation facilitation to integrate intimate partner screening programs in primary care. This study investigates implementation facilitation's impact on implementation and clinical effectiveness outcomes.
Study Design: A cluster randomized, stepped-wedge, hybrid-II implementation-effectiveness trial (January 2021-April 2022) was conducted amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
Setting/participants: Implementation facilitation was applied at 9 Veterans Health Administration facilities, staged across 2 waves. Participants were all women receiving care at participating primary care clinics 3 months before (pre-implementation facilitation n=2,272) and 9 months after initiation of implementation facilitation (implementation facilitation n=5,149).
Intervention: Implementation facilitation included an operations-funded external facilitator working for 6 months with a facility-funded internal facilitator from participating clinics. The pre-implementation facilitation period comprised implementation as usual in the Veterans Health Administration.
Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes were changes in (1) reach of intimate partner violence (IPV) screening programs among eligible women (i.e., those seen within participating clinics during the assessment period; implementation outcome) and (2) disclosure rates among screened women (effectiveness outcome). Secondary outcomes included disclosure rates among all eligible women and post-screening psychosocial service use. Administrative data were analyzed.
Results: For primary outcomes, women seen during the implementation facilitation period were nearly 3 times more likely to be screened for IPV than women seen during the pre-implementation facilitation period (OR=2.70, 95% CI=2.46, 2.97). Women screened during the implementation facilitation period were not more likely to disclose IPV than those screened during the pre-implementation facilitation period (OR=1.14, 95% CI=0.86, 1.51). For secondary outcomes, owing to increased reach of screening during implementation facilitation, women seen during the implementation facilitation period were more likely to disclose IPV than those seen during the pre-implementation facilitation period (OR=2.09, 95% CI=1.52, 2.86). Women screened during implementation facilitation were more likely to use post-screening psychosocial services than those screened during pre-implementation facilitation (OR=1.29, 95% CI=1.06, 1.57).
Conclusions: Findings indicate that implementation facilitation may be a promising strategy for increasing the reach of IPV screening programs in primary care, thereby increasing IPV detection and strengthening connections to support services among the patient population.
Trial Registration: This study is registered at www.
Clinicaltrials: gov NCT04106193.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10568536 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2023.02.013 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!