Implementation research: new imperatives and opportunities in global health

How is implementation research applied to advance health in low-income and middle-income countries?

This paper examines the characteristics of implementation research (IR) efforts in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) by describing how key IR principles and concepts have been used in published health research in LMICs between 1998 and 2016, with focus on how to better apply these principles and concepts to support large-scale impact of health interventions in LMICs. There is a stark discrepancy between principles of IR and what has been published. Most IR studies have been conducted under conditions where the researchers have considerable influence over implementation and with extra resources, rather than in ‘real world’ conditions. IR researchers tend to focus on research questions that test a proof of concept, such as whether a new intervention is feasible or can improve implementation. They also tend to use traditional fixed research designs, yet the usual conditions for managing programmes demand continuous learning and change. More IR in LMICs should be conducted under usual management conditions, employ pragmatic research paradigm and address critical implementation issues such as scale-up and sustainability of evidence-informed interventions. This paper describes some positive examples that address these concerns and identifies how better reporting of IR studies in LMICs would include more complete descriptions of strategies, contexts, concepts, methods and outcomes of IR activities. This will help practitioners, policy-makers and other researchers to better learn how to implement large-scale change in their own settings.

Integrated and differentiated methadone and HIV care for people who use drugs: a qualitative study in Kenya with implications for implementation science

Integrating methadone and HIV care is a priority in many low- and middle-income settings experiencing a growing challenge of HIV epidemics linked to injecting drug use. There is as yet little understanding of how to integrate methadone and HIV care in these settings and how such services can be implemented; such a gap reflects, in part, limitations in theorizing an implementation science of integrated care. In response, we qualitatively explored the delivery of methadone after its introduction in Kenya to understand integration with HIV care. Semi-structured interviews with people using methadone (n = 30) were supplemented by stakeholder interviews (n = 2) and participant observation in one city. Thematic analysis was used, that also drew on Mol's logic of care as an analytical framework. Respondents described methadone clinic-based care embedded in community support systems. Daily observed clinic care was challenging for methadone and stigmatizing for HIV treatment. In response to these challenges, integration evolved and HIV care differentiated to other sites. The resulting care system was acceptable to respondents and allowed for choice over locations and approaches to HIV care. Using Mol's logic of care as an analytical framework, we explore what led to this differentiation in integrated care. We explore co-production and experimentation around HIV care that compares with more limited experimentation for methadone. This experimentation is bounded by available discourses and materials. The study supports continued integration of services whilst allowing for differentiation of these models to adapt to client preferences. Co-location of integrated services must prioritize clinic organization that prevents HIV status disclosure. Our analysis fosters a material perspective for theory of implementation science and integration of services that focuses attention on local experimentation shaped by context.

Building capacity for Public Health 3.0: introducing implementation science into an MPH curriculum

Background

Many public health programs fail because of an inability to implement tested interventions in diverse, complex settings. The field of implementation science is engaged in developing strategies for successful implementation, but current training is primarily researcher-focused. To tackle the challenges of the twenty-first century, public health leaders are promoting a new model titled Public Health 3.0 where public health practitioners become “chief health strategists” and develop interdisciplinary skills for multisector engagement to achieve impact. This requires broad training for public health practitioners in implementation science that includes the allied fields of systems and design thinking, quality improvement, and innovative evaluation methods. At UNC Chapel Hill’s Gillings School of Global Public Health, we created an interdisciplinary set of courses in applied implementation science for Master of Public Health (MPH) students and public health practitioners. We describe our rationale, conceptual approach, pedagogy, courses, and initial results to assist other schools contemplating similar programs.

Methods

Our conceptual approach recognized the vital relationship between implementation research and practice. We conducted a literature review of thought leaders in public health to identify skill areas related to implementation science that are priorities for the future workforce. We also reviewed currently available training programs in implementation science to understand their scope and objectives and to assess whether any of these would be a fit for these priorities. We used a design focused implementation framework to create four linked courses drawing from multiple fields such as engineering, management, and the social sciences and emphasizing application through case studies. We validated the course content by mapping them to implementation science competencies in the literature.

Results

To date, there is no other program that provides comprehensive interdisciplinary skills in applied implementation science for MPH students. As of April 2018, we have offered a total of eleven sections of the four courses, with a total enrollment of 142, of whom 127 have been master’s-level students in the school of public health. Using Kirkpatrick’s Model, we found positive student reaction, learning, and behavior. Many students have completed applied implementation science focused practicums, master’s papers, and special studies.

Conclusions

A systematically designed interdisciplinary curriculum in applied implementation science for MPH students has been found by students to be a useful set of skills. Students have demonstrated the capability to master this material and incorporate it into their practicums and master’s papers.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0866-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Research, Innovation, and Policy: An Alliance Combating Antimicrobial Resistance

The surge in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has created a crisis that has become top priority for public health and global policy. Researchers, developers, innovators, funders, and policymakers need to curb AMR's rising trend by acting synergistically, boosting investment in developing solutions. This science-policy interface is now taking shape.