Dissemination and implementation of the ICAMP
Barbara M. Resnicka✉, Ruth Carricob, Stefan Gravensteinc, Michael D Hogued, Donald B. Middletone, Susan J. Rehmf, William Schaffnerg, Litjen Tanh
- aSchool of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, USA
- bSchool of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA
- cSchool of Medicine, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
- dSchool of Medicine, Samford University, Homewood, AL, USA
- eSchool of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- fSchool of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
- gSchool of Medicine, Vanderbilt School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA
- hImmunization Action Coalition, Saint Paul, MN, USA
- ✉Corresponding author
Papers open inside SciRah from the original publisher or repository; SciRah never hosts them.
Abstract
The current rate of immunizations for older adults does not meet the immunization goals for Healthy People 2020. Using a Social Ecological Model and Social Cognitive Theory, the purpose of this study was to disseminate and implement the Immunization Champions, Advocates and Mentors Program (ICAMP) into a variety of health care settings. This study used a single group pre-/post-test design. Champions were recruited nationally. Five geographically diverse face-to-face meetings were held to train health care providers to be ICAMP immunization champions. Dissemination and implementation of ICAMP was evaluated using the Reach, Efficacy/Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) model. Participants were surveyed at baseline for descriptive information and were asked to gather immunization rates for at least one particular vaccine and provide follow-up data on progress toward goal achievement. A total of 212 champions from 82 settings participated in ICAMP. The majority were nurses (111/212, 52%). With regard to reach, we obtained 212 applications from individuals in a variety of settings interested in becoming champions. With regard to effectiveness, the majority of the champions (n = 178/212, 84%) used ICAMP material, 88% (n = 186/212) made changes related to immunization processes within their setting, and all reported that immunization practices improved. The majority used the toolkit materials up through 60 days following ICAMP. Sustained use of materials after the 60-day follow-up was less evident. ICAMP was implemented as intended and was effective in changing processes around immunizations. Ongoing work is needed to determine whether ICAMP improves immunization rates.
TL;DRICAMP was implemented as intended and was effective in changing processes around immunizations, and ongoing work is needed to determine whether ICAMP improves immunization rates. (Semantic Scholar)