{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026221692491060787, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007548669050456893, 'mean_word_length': 5.232673267326732, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of a Mobile Insulin Titration Intervention for Uncontrolled Diabetes Patients: A Qualitative Analysis (Preprint)


 BACKGROUND
 In 2016, a text-messaging intervention to titrate insulin in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes was implemented at two health care systems in New York City.
 
 
 OBJECTIVE
 This study conducted a qualitative evaluation assessing barriers to, and facilitators of, implementation of the mobile insulin titration intervention (called “MITI”) into usual care.
 
 
 METHODS
 We conducted in-depth interviews with patients enrolled in the MITI program (N=36) and staff involved in MITI (N=19) at the two health care systems. Interviews were transcribed and iteratively coded by two study investigators both inductively and deductively using a codebook guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.
 
 
 RESULTS
 Multiple facilitator themes emerged: 1) MITI had strong relative advantages to in-person titration including its convenience and time-saving design; 2) the free cost of MITI was important to patients; 3) MITI was easy to use and patients were confident in their ability to use MITI; 4) MITI was compatible with patients’ home routines and clinic workflow; 5) patients and staff perceived MITI to have value beyond insulin titration by reminding and motivating patients to engage in healthy behaviors and providing a source of patient support; and 6) implementation in clinics was made easy by having a strong implementation climate, communication networks to spread information about MITI, and a strong program champion. Barriers identified included: 1) language limitations; 2) initial nurse concerns about scope of practice changes required to deliver MITI; 2) initial provider knowledge gaps about the program; and 3) provider perceptions that MITI may not be appropriate for some patients (e.g., older, not tech-savvy). There was also a theme that emerged during patient and staff interviewees of an unmet need for longer-term, additional diabetes management support among this population, specifically diet, nutrition and exercise support.
 
 
 CONCLUSIONS
 Patients and staff were overwhelmingly supportive of MITI, believed it had many benefits and believed it was compatible with the clinic workflow and patient’s lives. Initial implementation efforts should address staff training and nurse concerns. Future research should explore options for integrating additional diabetes support for patients.
