1
|
Balis LE, Houghtaling B, Clausen W, Lane H, Wende ME, Pereira E, McLoughlin GM, Harden SM. Advancing implementation science in community settings: the implementation strategies applied in communities (ISAC) compilation. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2024; 21:132. [PMID: 39593079 PMCID: PMC11590528 DOI: 10.1186/s12966-024-01685-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2024] [Accepted: 11/17/2024] [Indexed: 11/28/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Implementation strategies have predominantly been operationalized and studied in clinical settings. Implementation strategies are also needed to improve evidence-based intervention (EBI) integration in community settings, but there is a lack of systematic characterization of their use, which limits generalizability of findings. The goals of this study were to determine which implementation strategies are most used to deliver primary prevention EBIs in community settings, develop a compilation and pragmatic strategy selection process with accompanying guidance tools, and understand practitioners' preferences for dissemination. METHODS Purposive and snowball sampling was used to recruit community setting researchers and practitioners delivering primary prevention EBIs (nutrition, physical activity, tobacco prevention) in community settings: education, social services, city planning and transportation, workplaces, recreation/sport, faith-based, and other public health organizations. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using a guide based on the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Participants were asked to describe barriers experienced and strategies used to overcome them within each RE-AIM dimension. Practitioners were also asked about preferred dissemination strategies, prompted by Diffusion of Innovations theory concepts of sources (who provides information) and channels (how information is provided). A rapid deductive approach was used to analyze findings with a coding matrix aligned with the interview guide. RESULTS Researchers (n = 10) and practitioners (n = 8) across all targeted settings and intervention outcomes completed interviews. Interviewees shared unique implementation strategies (N = 40) which were used to overcome barriers related to multiple RE-AIM dimensions, most commonly implementation (n = 29) and adoption (n = 27). Most frequently mentioned implementation strategies were conduct pragmatic evaluation (n = 31), provide training (n = 26), change adaptable program components (n = 26), and leverage funding sources (n = 21). Webinars (n = 6) and listservs/newsletters (n = 5) were the most mentioned dissemination channels; national public health organizations (n = 13) were the most mentioned sources. CONCLUSIONS Results reflect commonly used implementation strategies in community settings (e.g., training, technical assistance) and add novel strategies not reflected in current taxonomies. Dissemination preferences suggest the need to involve broad-reaching public health organizations. The resultant compilation (Implementation Strategies Applied in Communities) and strategy selection process provide resources to assist researchers and practitioners in applying strategies and improving EBI delivery in community settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura E Balis
- Center for Nutrition & Health Impact, Omaha, NE, USA.
| | - Bailey Houghtaling
- Center for Nutrition & Health Impact, Omaha, NE, USA
- Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
| | | | - Hannah Lane
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Marilyn E Wende
- Department of Health Education and Behavior, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Emiliane Pereira
- Department of Health Promotion, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA
| | - Gabriella M McLoughlin
- Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Temple University College of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Washington University Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control (WUISC3), St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Samantha M Harden
- Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Houghtaling B, Short E, Shanks CB, Stotz SA, Yaroch A, Seligman H, Marriott JP, Eastman J, Long CR. Implementation of Food is Medicine Programs in Healthcare Settings: A Narrative Review. J Gen Intern Med 2024; 39:2797-2805. [PMID: 38662283 PMCID: PMC11535093 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-024-08768-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2023] [Accepted: 04/10/2024] [Indexed: 04/26/2024]
Abstract
Food is Medicine (FIM) programs to improve the accessibility of fruits and vegetables (FVs) or other healthy foods among patients with low income and diet-related chronic diseases are promising to improve food and nutrition security in the United States (US). However, FIM programs are relatively new and implementation guidance for healthcare settings using an implementation science lens is lacking. We used a narrative review to describe the evidence base on barriers and facilitators to FIM program integration in US healthcare settings following the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) Framework. Evidence surrounding the EPIS Inner Context was a focus, including constructs Leadership, Organizational Characteristics, Quality and Fidelity Monitoring and Support, Organizational Staffing Processes, and Individual Characteristics. Peer-reviewed and grey literature about barriers and facilitators to FIM programs were of interest, defined as programs that screen and refer eligible patients with diet-related chronic disease experiencing food insecurity to healthy, unprepared foods. Thirty-one sources were included in the narrative review, including 22 peer-reviewed articles, four reports, four toolkits, and one thesis. Twenty-eight sources (90%) described EPIS Inner Context facilitators and 26 sources (84%) described FIM program barriers. The most common barriers and facilitators to FIM programs were regarding Quality and Fidelity Monitoring and Support (e.g., use of electronic medical records for tracking and evaluation, strategies to support implementation) and Organizational Staffing Processes (e.g., clear delineation of staff roles and capacity); although, barriers and facilitators to FIM programs were identified among all EPIS Inner Context constructs. We synthesized barriers and facilitators to create an EPIS-informed implementation checklist for healthcare settings for use among healthcare organizations/providers, partner organizations, and technical assistance personnel. We discuss future directions to align FIM efforts with implementation science terminology and theories, models, and frameworks to improve the implementation evidence base and support FIM researchers and practitioners.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bailey Houghtaling
- Gretchen Swanson Center for Nutrition, Omaha, NE, USA.
- Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
| | - Eliza Short
- Gretchen Swanson Center for Nutrition, Omaha, NE, USA
| | | | - Sarah A Stotz
- Gretchen Swanson Center for Nutrition, Omaha, NE, USA
- Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
| | - Amy Yaroch
- Gretchen Swanson Center for Nutrition, Omaha, NE, USA
| | - Hilary Seligman
- Gretchen Swanson Center for Nutrition, Omaha, NE, USA
- Division of General Internal Medicine and Center for Vulnerable Populations, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | | | - Jenna Eastman
- Gretchen Swanson Center for Nutrition, Omaha, NE, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Middel CN, Schuitmaker-Warnaar TJ, Mackenbach JD, Broerse JE. A Systems Innovation Perspective on Implementation and Sustainment Barriers for Healthy Food Store Interventions: A Reflexive Monitoring in Action Study in Dutch Supermarkets. Int J Health Policy Manag 2024; 13:8036. [PMID: 39099507 PMCID: PMC11270604 DOI: 10.34172/ijhpm.2024.8036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2023] [Accepted: 03/24/2024] [Indexed: 08/06/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Healthy food store interventions (HFIs) are an important health-promotion tool, but face implementation and sustainment barriers. This paper aims to explore the underlying factors that produce these barriers using an innovative systems innovation perspective, through the case study of a multi-component HFI. The HFI was implemented in a minor, national, cooperative supermarket chain, in the Netherlands, a competitive market where price-based competition is the norm. METHODS The HFI was implemented for 6-12 months, in six stores. It was implemented by the researchers, and maintained by store employees. The study applied a Reflexive Monitoring in Action (RMA) approach, meaning that the researchers monitored stores' adherence to the HFI, via store visits, to identify potential issues. Subsequently, the researchers interviewed the store managers responsible for the intervention, to have them reflect upon the barriers leading to these adherence issues, underlying systemic factors, and potential solutions. The stores implemented these solutions, and during the next monitoring visit the researchers evaluated whether the barrier had been resolved. RESULTS We found that the HFI often clashed with regular activities of the stores (eg, competing over the same spaces) and that store managers generally prioritized these regular activities. This prioritization was based on the greater commercial value of those regular activities (eg, selling unhealthy products) according to store managers, based on their beliefs and assumptions about commerce, health, and consumer preferences. Due to the limited resources of supermarkets (eg, people, time, space), and the HFI often not fitting within the existing structures of the stores as easily as traditional practices, store managers often neglected the HFI components in favor of regular store activities. CONCLUSION Our findings illustrate the systemic factors that produce implementation barriers for HFIs, and the dynamics by which this production occurs. These insights help future researchers to anticipate and respond to such barriers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cédric N.H. Middel
- Athena Institute, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Upstream Team, www.upstreamteam.nl, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health, Health Behaviors and Chronic Diseases, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Joreintje D. Mackenbach
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Upstream Team, www.upstreamteam.nl, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health, Health Behaviors and Chronic Diseases, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jacqueline E.W. Broerse
- Athena Institute, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Balis LE, Houghtaling B. Matching barriers and facilitators to implementation strategies: recommendations for community settings. Implement Sci Commun 2023; 4:144. [PMID: 37990243 PMCID: PMC10664260 DOI: 10.1186/s43058-023-00532-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2023] [Accepted: 11/13/2023] [Indexed: 11/23/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Implementation science aims to improve the integration of evidence-based interventions in real-world settings. While its methods and models could potentially apply to any field with evidence-based interventions, most research thus far has originated in clinical settings. Community settings often have fewer resources, missions beyond health, and a lack of support and expertise to implement evidence-based interventions when compared to many clinical settings. Thus, selecting and tailoring implementation strategies in community settings is particularly challenging, as existing compilations are primarily operationalized through clinical setting terminology. In this debate, we (1) share the process of using an existing match tool to select implementation strategies to increase uptake of nutrition and physical activity policy, systems, and environment interventions in community settings and (2) discuss the challenges of this process to argue that selecting implementation strategies in community settings has limited transferability from clinical settings and may require a unique implementation strategy compilation and pragmatic matching tool. MATCHING BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES The impetus for this debate paper came from our work selecting implementation strategies to improve the implementation and eventual scaling of nutrition and physical activity policy, systems, and environment interventions in a community settings. We conducted focus groups with practitioners and used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change match tool to select potential implementation strategies to overcome prominent barriers. There was limited congruence between tool outputs and optimal strategies, which may in part be due to differences in context between clinical and community settings. Based on this, we outline needs and recommendations for developing a novel and pragmatic matching tool for researchers and practitioners in community settings. CONCLUSIONS More work is needed to refine the implementation barrier-strategy matching process to ensure it is relevant, rapid, and rigorous. As leading implementation strategy scholars note, as more researchers document contextual factors and strategies selected to address them, the knowledge base will increase, and refined mapping processes can emerge.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura E Balis
- Gretchen Swanson Center for Nutrition, Omaha, NE, 68514, USA.
- Department of Human Nutrition, Virginia Tech, Foods, and Exercise, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA.
| | - Bailey Houghtaling
- Gretchen Swanson Center for Nutrition, Omaha, NE, 68514, USA
- Department of Human Nutrition, Virginia Tech, Foods, and Exercise, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA
- School of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Louisiana State University (LSU) & LSU Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, USA
| |
Collapse
|