Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul 29;22(1):965.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08332-4.

Facility-based simulation as a programmatic tool for implementing a statewide contraceptive initiative

Affiliations

Facility-based simulation as a programmatic tool for implementing a statewide contraceptive initiative

Susanna R Cohen et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Assessing implementation fidelity is highly recommended, but successful approaches can be challenging. Family Planning Elevated (FPE) is a statewide contraceptive initiative which partnered with 28 health clinics across Utah. To assess implementation fidelity, we developed in-situ high-fidelity simulation training to both determine clinic adherence to FPE and offer education to implementing teams. This study aimed to develop, pilot, and assess the use of simulation as a tool for measuring implementation fidelity.

Methods: We developed two simulation scenarios to determine implementation fidelity: one scenario wherein a client is seeking a new method of contraception and another in which the same client has returned to discontinue the method. Both simulations contained multiple aspects of program implementation (e.g., determining program eligibility). We then offered simulations to all FPE partner organizations. To assess simulation training as a tool for determining implementation fidelity, we developed strategies aligned with each aspect of an adapted RE-AIM framework, including pre-post surveys, acceptability and self-efficacy testing, a checklist for programmatic adherence, field notes, action planning and analysis of monitoring data.

Results: Fifteen clinical sites and 71 team members participated in the in-situ simulations. Assessment of the checklist showed that 90% of the clinics successfully demonstrated key program components, including person-centered counseling techniques such as sitting at the patient's level (95.8%); asking open-ended questions (100%); and explaining how to use the contraceptive method selected (91.7%). More than half of clinics fell short in programmatic areas including: confirmation that the FPE program covered same-day intrauterine device insertion (54.2%), and education on health risks associated with the selected contraceptive method (58.3%). After simulation, participants reported improved knowledge of how FPE works (p = < 0.001), increased ability to identify FPE-eligible clients (p = 0.02) and heightened self-efficacy in helping clients select a method (p = 0.03). Participants were satisfied with the simulations, with most (84.1%) reporting that the simulation exceeded their expectations.

Conclusions: Highly-realistic in-situ family planning simulations are acceptable to participants, positively change knowledge and clinical team confidence, and can identify systems gaps in clinical care and program implementation. Simulation offers a reciprocal way of monitoring implementation fidelity of a family planning access initiative.

Trial registration: This project was determined to be exempt by the IRB of the University of Utah, the larger Family Planning Elevated program under which this pilot study was nested is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03877757 .

Keywords: Clinic audits; Family Planning; Implementation fidelity; Simulation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Not applicable.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Overview of Simulation Scenarios
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Simulated patient with PartoPantsTM and IUD Task Trainer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. McGill E, Er V, Penney T, Egan M, White M, Meier P, et al. Evaluation of public health interventions from a complex systems perspective: a research methods review. Soc Sci Med. 2021;272:113697. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113697. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1655. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1258. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Campbell NC, Murray E, Darbyshire J, Emery J, Farmer A, Griffiths F, et al. Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. BMJ. 2007;334(7591):455–459. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39108.379965.BE. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Carroll C, Patterson M, Wood S, Booth A, Rick J, Balain S. A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implement Sci. 2007;2(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-2-40. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Substances

Associated data