Strategies for the use of PIMEX and other video exposure monitoring methods. : Final report from sub-project “implementation strategies” within the HERIVIS project

Video exposure monitoring (VEM) is a group of methods used for occupational hygiene studies. The method is based on a combined use of video recordings with measurements taken with real-time monitoring instruments. A commonly used name for VEM is PIMEX. Since PIMEX initially was invented in the mid 1980’s have the method been implemented and developed in a number of countries. With the aim to give an updated picture of how VEM methods are used and to investigate needs for further development have a number of workshops been organised in Finland, UK, the Netherlands, Germany and Austria. Field studies have also been made with the aim to study to what extent the PIMEX method can improve workers motivation to actively take part in actions aimed at workplace improvements.The results from the workshops illustrates clearly that there is an impressive amount of experiences and ideas for the use of VEM within the network of the groups participating in the workshops. The sharing of these experiences between the groups, as well as dissemination of it to wider groups is, however, limited. The field studies made together with a number of welders indicate that their motivation to take part in workplace improvements is improved after the PIMEX intervention. The results are however not totally conclusive and further studies focusing on motivation are called for.It is recommended that strategies for VEM, for interventions in single workplaces, as well as for exposure categorisation and production of training material are further developed. It is also recommended to conduct a research project with the intention of evaluating the effects of the use of VEM as well as to disseminate knowledge about the potential of VEM to occupational hygiene experts and others who may benefit from its use.

Health system context and implementation of evidence-based practices-development and validation of the Context Assessment for Community Health (COACH) tool for low- and middle-income settings

Background: The gap between what is known and what is practiced results in health service users not benefitting from advances in healthcare, and in unnecessary costs. A supportive context is considered a key element for successful implementation of evidence-based practices (EBP). There were no tools available for the systematic mapping of aspects of organizational context influencing the implementation of EBPs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Thus, this project aimed to develop and psychometrically validate a tool for this purpose. Methods: The development of the Context Assessment for Community Health (COACH) tool was premised on the context dimension in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework, and is a derivative product of the Alberta Context Tool. Its development was undertaken in Bangladesh, Vietnam, Uganda, South Africa and Nicaragua in six phases: (1) defining dimensions and draft tool development, (2) content validity amongst in-country expert panels, (3) content validity amongst international experts, (4) response process validity, (5) translation and (6) evaluation of psychometric properties amongst 690 health workers in the five countries. Results: The tool was validated for use amongst physicians, nurse/midwives and community health workers. The six phases of development resulted in a good fit between the theoretical dimensions of the COACH tool and its psychometric properties. The tool has 49 items measuring eight aspects of context: Resources, Community engagement, Commitment to work, Informal payment, Leadership, Work culture, Monitoring services for action and Sources of knowledge. Conclusions: Aspects of organizational context that were identified as influencing the implementation of EBPs in high-income settings were also found to be relevant in LMICs. However, there were additional aspects of context of relevance in LMICs specifically Resources, Community engagement, Commitment to work and Informal payment. Use of the COACH tool will allow for systematic description of the local healthcare context prior implementing healthcare interventions to allow for tailoring implementation strategies or as part of the evaluation of implementing healthcare interventions and thus allow for deeper insights into the process of implementing EBPs in LMICs.

Implementation of Video Monitoring In Aluminium Industry

The aim was to evaluate results and experiences from development of new technology, a training program and implementation of strategies for the use of a video exposure monitoring method, PIMEX. Starting point of this study is an increased incidence of asthma among workers in the aluminium industry. Exposure peaks of fumes are supposed to play an important role. PIMEX makes it possible to link used work practice, use of control technology, and so forth to peaks. Nine companies participated in the project, which was divided into three parts, development of PIMEX technology, production of training material, and training in use of equipment and related strategies. The use of the video exposure monitoring method PIMEX offers prerequisites supporting workers participation in safety activities. The experiences from the project reveal the importance of good timing of primary training, technology development, technical support, and follow up training. In spite of a delay of delivery of the new technology, representatives from the participating companies declared that the experiences showed that PIMEX gave an important contribution for effective control of hazards in the companies. Eight out of nine smelters used the PIMEX method as a part of a strategy for control of workers exposure to fumes in potrooms. Possibilities to conduct effective control measures were identified. This article describes experiences from implementation of a, for this branch, new method supporting workers participation for workplace improvements.

How single is ‘single’ : some pragmatic reflections on single versus multifaceted interventions to facilitate implementation

An earlier overview of systematic reviews and a subsequent editorial on single-component versus multifaceted interventions to promote knowledge translation (KT) highlight complex issues in implementation science. In this supplemented commentary, further aspects are in focus; we propose examples from (KT) studies probing the issue of single interventions. A main point is that defining what is a single and what is a multifaceted intervention can be ambiguous, depending on how the intervention is conceived. Further, we suggest additional perspectives in terms of strategies to facilitate implementation. More specifically, we argue for a need to depict not only what activities are done in implementation interventions, but to unpack functions in particular contexts, in order to support the progress of implementation science.

Clinical interventions, implementation interventions, and the potential greyness in between - a discussion paper

Background: There is increasing awareness that regardless of the proven value of clinical interventions, the use of effective strategies to implement such interventions into clinical practice is necessary to ensure that patients receive the benefits. However, there is often confusion between what is the clinical intervention and what is the implementation intervention. This may be caused by a lack of conceptual clarity between 'intervention' and 'implementation', yet at other times by ambiguity in application. We suggest that both the scientific and the clinical communities would benefit from greater clarity; therefore, in this paper, we address the concepts of intervention and implementation, primarily as in clinical interventions and implementation interventions, and explore the grey area in between. Discussion: To begin, we consider the similarities, differences and potential greyness between clinical interventions and implementation interventions through an overview of concepts. This is illustrated with reference to two examples of clinical interventions and implementation intervention studies, including the potential ambiguity in between. We then discuss strategies to explore the hybridity of clinical-implementation intervention studies, including the role of theories, frameworks, models, and reporting guidelines that can be applied to help clarify the clinical and implementation intervention, respectively. Conclusion: Semantics provide opportunities for improved precision in depicting what is 'intervention' and what is 'implementation' in health care research. Further, attention to study design, the use of theory, and adoption of reporting guidelines can assist in distinguishing between the clinical intervention and the implementation intervention. However, certain aspects may remain unclear in analyses of hybrid studies of clinical and implementation interventions. Recognizing this potential greyness can inform further discourse.