Few studies have rigorously evaluated the drivers of successful implementation of interventions to improve human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of Development of Systems and Education for HPV Vaccination (DOSE HPV), a performance improvement intervention.
Primary care providers (PCPs), nurses, and individuals with leadership roles from pediatric and family medicine practices who attended DOSE HPV intervention sessions participated in qualitative interviews immediately following intervention completion. The study team professionally transcribed interviews and performed qualitative coding using inductive methods. Final analysis employed the Promoting Action on Research implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) model.
Twenty-six individuals participated: 12 PCPs, 5 nurses, and 9 individuals with dual leadership and PCP roles. Participants described five factors that they felt contributed to program success: (1) evidence-based, goal-directed education; (2) personalized data feedback; (3) clinical leadership support; (4) collaborative facilitation; (5) repeated contacts/longitudinal structure of the intervention. Barriers to implementing the intervention included: (1) inability to standardize workflow across practices; (2) low pediatric volume, (3) competing priorities/lack of incentives, (4) ineffective involvement of nurses, (5) poor communication between clinical leadership and staff.
Although many HPV testing interventions have been implemented, findings have been mixed. It is clear that having an effective, evidence-based intervention by itself is not enough to get it into practice. Rather, it is crucial to consider implementation factors to ensure consistent implementation and sustainability. Key factors for the success of the DOSE HPV intervention appear to include a collaborative approach, provision of useful evidence to motivate behavior change, and repeated contacts to ensure accountability for implementing changes. Workflow issues, ineffective lines of communication, and competing priorities at both the visit and the patient and population management levels can hinder implementation.